Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal

“Section 39 Is Not an Absolute Bar – Civil Court Can Interfere Where Natural Justice Is Violated”, In a significant ruling on the interplay between consolidation proceedings and revenue adjudication, the Orissa High Court affirming the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, Bhadrak.

Justice Sashikanta Mishra held that the plaintiff’s claim of title, founded on an unregistered and allegedly fabricated lease deed of 1943, could not be upheld merely because a consolidation Record-of-Rights (ROR) had been published in his favour. The Court further clarified that although Section 39 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 bars civil court jurisdiction in certain matters, such bar is not absolute where violation of statutory procedure or principles of natural justice is alleged.

The Second Appeal was dismissed, and the decree of the First Appellate Court reversing the Trial Court’s judgment was affirmed.

Challenge to OEA Order Declaring Lease Invalid

The original plaintiff claimed that the suit land belonged to ex-landlord Habibur Reheman, who had executed an unregistered lease deed dated 13.06.1943 in his favour and delivered possession. He asserted continuous possession for over four decades, reclamation of land, excavation of a tank, and construction of a farmhouse. He further claimed that after vesting of estates, he paid rent to the State and during consolidation operations in 1979, ROR was published in his favour on 17.01.1983.

However, the Tahasildar initiated OEA Case No.1 of 1976 under Section 5(i) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951. By order dated 05.04.1984, the Tahasildar set aside the lease and extinguished the plaintiff’s alleged right, title and interest. The plaintiff contended that no notice was issued to him or the ex-intermediary and that the order was passed behind his back, rendering it void.

The Trial Court decreed the suit, holding that the OEA proceeding suffered from procedural defects. The First Appellate Court reversed the decree, holding the lease deed fabricated and the OEA proceeding valid. The matter reached the High Court in Second Appeal.

The substantial questions of law framed included whether the civil court had jurisdiction to declare the OEA order void, whether consolidation authorities alone were competent to adjudicate such disputes, whether the successors of the ex-intermediary were necessary parties, and whether non-challenge of the consolidation ROR created exclusive title in favour of the plaintiff.

Civil Court Jurisdiction vis-à-vis Consolidation Bar

The appellants argued that Section 39 of the OCH & PFL Act barred the civil suit and that consolidation authorities had exclusive jurisdiction.

The Court examined Section 4(4) and Section 51 of the OCH & PFL Act and held that consolidation notification does not abate proceedings pending before revenue authorities nor does it divest the OEA Collector of jurisdiction.

At the same time, the Court clarified:

“While Section 39… places a bar on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, yet it is well-settled that the Civil Court has ample jurisdiction to interfere where the statutory procedure is found to have been violated or principles of natural justice have not been followed etc. Section 39 therefore, cannot be treated as an absolute bar.”

Thus, the civil court could entertain a challenge alleging procedural illegality, though on facts the plaintiff failed.

Lease by Minor and Antedated Document: Foundational Claim Collapses

The First Appellate Court had examined the unregistered lease deed dated 13.06.1943 and found that the plaintiff was about 13 years old at the time of its purported execution. The document contained mutilations, especially regarding the age of the plaintiff. It was also found that the lease was created after 1946 and antedated.

Justice Mishra concurred, observing:

“Fact remains that the lease deed itself appears to be a created document as held by the First Appellate Court for the reasons indicated.”

The plaintiff failed to adduce cogent evidence to establish genuineness of the lease. Once the foundational document of title was found fabricated, the entire edifice of the plaintiff’s claim collapsed.

Consolidation ROR Does Not Confer Title

The appellants strongly relied on the consolidation ROR published in their favour in January 1983 and argued that since the State did not challenge it, their title stood confirmed.

Rejecting this submission, the Court held:

“Issuance of consolidation ROR prior to the order passed in the OEA proceeding shall have no effect nor confer any right on the plaintiff.”

The Tahasildar had conducted a spot inquiry and found that the plaintiff was not in possession and that the land contained two tanks used by villagers. The plaintiff had not appeared in the OEA proceeding nor produced evidence.

The Court made it clear that consolidation entries are evidentiary in nature and cannot override a validly passed OEA order, particularly where the claimant’s foundational document is invalid.

No Substantial Question of Law Survives

The High Court found no perversity in the findings of the First Appellate Court regarding fabrication of the lease deed, absence of possession, and validity of the OEA proceeding.

Concluding the matter, the Court held:

“From a conspectus of the analysis of facts and law, this Court is persuaded to concur with the findings of the First Appellate Court and therefore, finds no reason to interfere.”

The judgment reinforces that consolidation ROR entries do not create title in absence of a valid underlying right. It also clarifies that while Section 39 of the OCH & PFL Act bars civil jurisdiction in matters triable by consolidation authorities, the bar is not absolute in cases of procedural violation. However, where the claimant’s foundational document itself is found fabricated, neither consolidation entries nor procedural arguments can salvage the claim.

Date of Decision: 12/02/2026