Supreme Court Affirms Land Ownership Rights Bihar Land Dispute Case, Rejects State Claim

Case Title – Ram Balak Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 2024 INSC 360

Case Number – 1627 of 2016

Dated on – 1^st May, 2024

Quorum – Justice Pankaj Mithal

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the case of Ram Balak Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 2024 INSC 360, the Appellant, Ram Balak, instituted a suit for possession and confirmation of the possession over 0.32 decimal of land in the Village of Kishanpur, Bihar. Initially, the land belonged to Rambit Kuwer, who through a lease deed in 1341 fasli settled it in favour of Makhan Singh. Until his death, Makhan Singh continued in possession of the land, subsequently his adopted son, Ram Balak Singh, inherited the said land. During the process of consolidation under the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, the name of Ram Balak, the adopted son of Makhan Singh was recorded as the owner of the said land by the Consolidation officer. However, thereafter, the State Authorities claimed whole of the land, inclusive of the suit land, as pond land and intervened with the possession of the Appellant. The Appellant instituted a suit against the State of Bihar and another party seeking the declaration of his title over the land and the confirmation of his possession. The trial court ruled the suit in favour of the Appellant, but the decision of the court was reversed by the First Appellate Court and asserted by the High Court. The Appellant in this case, appealed to the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Appellate Court.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

1. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that he and his predecessor-in-interest have been in possession of the land since it was resolved in their favour.
2. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Consolidation Officer had acknowledged his rights over the land and directed his name to be recorded in the records of rights, which should be final and conclusive.
3. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Appellate Courts erred in revising the decree of the Trial Court, as he had furnished sufficient evidence to establish his rights and possession over the land.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

1. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the whole of the land was pond land and could not be settled in favour of the Appellant.
2. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the suit was not maintainable under Section 37 of the Consolidation Act, 1956, which bars the civil matters falling under the Jurisdiction of the Consolidation Court.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Section 10(B) of the Consolidation Act, 1956 prescribes the decision of matters relating to charges and transactions affecting rights or interest recorded in revised records
2. Section 37 of the Consolidation Act, 1956 prescribes the Bar of Jurisdiction of Civil Courts
3. Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 prescribes the procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by court
4. Article 32 of the Constitution of India prescribes the Right to constitutional remedies for the enforcement of the fundamental rights of an aggrieved citizen
5. Article 226 of the Constitution of India prescribes the power of the High Courts to issue certain writs
6. Article 227 of the Constitution of India prescribes the power of Superintendence over all courts by the High Court

ISSUES

1. The main issue of the case revolved around whether the order of the Consolidation Officer acknowledging the title of the Appellant over the land can be ignored or reversed by the Civil Court?
2. Whether the suit instituted by the Appellant is barred under Section 37 of the Consolidation Act, 1956?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Ram Balak Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 2024 INSC 360, analysed the provisions of the Consolidation Act, 1956, which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts in the matters related to land consolidation. The court, in this present case, observed that the order of the Consolidation Officer recognizing the rights of the Appellant over the land had attained finality and could not be ignored or reversed by the Civil Court. The Court, in this present case, held that the suit instituted by the Appellant was not challenging any decision of the Consolidation Court but seeking the recognition of his rights over the land. Thus, the court concluded that the suit instituted by the Appellant was not barred under Section 37 of the Consolidation Act,1956. The court allowed the appeal of the Appellant, set aside the judgments of the Appellate Courts and restored the decree of the Trial Court in favour of the Appellant.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment