The Orissa High Court affirms that challenged orders in OEA appeals cannot be reopened by civil suit in absence of certified copies or appeal to the Board of Revenue, upholding the statutory bar in land grant proceedings; a binding authority for all subordinate courts of this High Court.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| CNR | ODHC010046722018 |
| Date of Registration | 02-01-2018 |
| Decision Date | 26-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Justice Sashikanta Mishra |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Single bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts of the Orissa High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure; Revenue (OEA Act) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that in the absence of a certified copy or authenticated record of the ADM’s appeal order, a civil court cannot examine its legality; Section 39 of the OEA Act bars any civil suit challenging entries or orders under the Act unless the statutory remedies (e.g., appeal to Board of Revenue) are exhausted; concurrent findings on title and possession supported by documentary evidence are binding and not to be disturbed in a second appeal. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Plaintiffs, representing villagers, claimed the suit land was a communal water channel in Anabadi Khata; defendant No.1 asserted a Stitiban Rayati right under an Ekpadia and lease from his father, upheld on appeal by the ADM; plaintiffs never produced the ADM’s order nor challenged it under the OEA Act; lower courts held the land as defendant’s stitiban cultivable land and barred the suit by Section 39. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts of the Orissa High Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that without a certified copy of an OEA Act appellate order, civil courts lack jurisdiction to question its validity.
- Reinforces that Section 39 of the OEA Act bars civil suits challenging any matter already subject to proceedings under the Act unless statutory appeals are exhausted.
- Affirms that concurrent factual findings on title, possession, and land classification based on documentary records cannot be disturbed in second appeals.
- Clarifies the limited scope of Section 9 CPC when pitted against a statutory bar under the OEA Act.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Absence of Certified Order
Plaintiffs did not produce a certified copy of the ADM’s appeal order; the Trial Court invoked Section 9 of the OEA Act to hold that the ADM had jurisdiction and the appeal was maintainable. - Validity of ADM’s Order
In absence of any contrary or authenticated evidence, the ADM’s order was treated as valid and binding. - Statutory Bar under Section 39
Section 39 of the OEA Act precludes any civil suit in respect of entries or orders already subject to OEA Act proceedings; plaintiffs never appealed to the Board of Revenue. - Concurrent Findings on Title and Possession
Documentary evidence (tenant ledger, rent receipts, subsequent ROR entries) supported defendant’s exclusive title and possession; no perversity found in concurrent findings of lower courts. - Conclusion and Dismissal
The appeal lacked merit on both jurisdictional and substantive grounds; substantial questions answered against plaintiffs; suit dismissed without costs.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Plaintiffs-Appellants):
- The ADM’s appeal order was passed behind villagers’ backs and without jurisdictional foundation or Board of Revenue confirmation.
- Section 9 CPC grants civil courts wide powers to examine if statutory authorities exceeded jurisdiction.
- Defendant failed to adduce cogent evidence proving a valid Stitiban Rayati right.
Respondent (Defendant No.1):
- Plaintiffs never produced the ADM’s order in the trial court; without it, its legality cannot be impugned.
- A 1963 revenue notification vested Section 5(i) OEA Act jurisdiction in the Sub-Collector, not the Tahasildar; the ADM correctly set aside the Tahasildar’s order.
- Plaintiffs did not challenge the ADM’s order before the Board of Revenue; Section 39 OEA Act thus bars civil proceedings.
- Concurrent factual findings on land character and exclusive possession are conclusive in second appeals.
Factual Background
Plaintiffs, as village representatives, sued to declare defendant No.1 had no right, title or interest over an Anabadi Khata plot recorded as a communal water channel. Defendant claimed Stitiban Rayati rights via an Ekpadia and lease under Section 5(i) of the OEA Act, upheld on appeal by the ADM. Plaintiffs did not produce the ADM’s order nor challenge it before the Board of Revenue. Trial and first appellate courts found the land to be defendant’s cultivable stitiban property and barred the suit under Section 39 of the OEA Act.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 5(i), OEA Act: Empowers the Tahasildar (and by notification, the Sub-Collector) to enquire into and confirm or refuse ex-landlord leases.
- Section 9, OEA Act: Prevents civil courts from questioning entries in or omissions from compensation rolls or orders under Chapters II–VI of the Act.
- Section 39, OEA Act: Bars any civil suit in respect of matters already the subject of OEA Act applications or proceedings.
- Section 9, CPC: Grants civil courts power to test jurisdictional competence of statutory authorities—subject to statutory bars under the OEA Act.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court upheld established statutory bars and principles under the OEA Act.