Plaint Reading Reveals Scope of Bar on Suits Related to Consolidation Court Orders.

The legal dispute over land possession in Bihar, India. It begins with the plaintiff's appeal following the reversal of a court decree affirming his possession of a land parcel. The suit revolves around 0.32 decimal of land in village Kishanpur, which the ex-landlord settled in favor of Makhan Singh, later inherited by the plaintiff-appellant.

The dispute arises due to consolidation proceedings wherein the State authorities claimed the land, prompting the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration of his title and possession. Despite the Consolidation Officer's order favoring the plaintiff, the appellate courts reversed the decree, leading to the current appeal.

The key argument from the plaintiff's side is that the Consolidation Officer's order, recognizing his rights over the land, should prevail. The State argues that the suit is not maintainable due to Consolidation Act provisions.

The document analyzes the Consolidation Act's provisions, emphasizing the authority of consolidation authorities in land matters and the jurisdictional bar on civil courts. It concludes that the Civil Court cannot challenge the Consolidation Officer's order and restores the trial court's decree in favor of the plaintiff-appellant.

In essence, the plaintiff's appeal is successful, and the court reinstates the original decree affirming his possession of the disputed land.

1. Background of the Dispute: The plaintiff appeals against the reversal of a court decree confirming his possession of land in Bihar.

2. Description of the Disputed Land: The land, measuring 0.32 decimal, was settled by the ex-landlord in favor of Makhan Singh, later inherited by the plaintiff.

3. Consolidation Proceedings: The village underwent consolidation, during which the State claimed the land, prompting the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration of title and possession.

4. Legal Proceedings: Despite the Consolidation Officer's order favoring the plaintiff, the appellate courts reversed the decree, leading to the current appeal.

5. Arguments of the Parties: The plaintiff argues that the Consolidation Officer's order should prevail, while the State claims the suit is not maintainable due to Consolidation Act provisions.

6. Analysis of Consolidation Act: The document examines the provisions of the Consolidation Act, emphasizing the authority of consolidation authorities and the jurisdictional bar on civil courts.

7. Conclusion: The court rules in favor of the plaintiff, reinstating the original decree confirming his possession of the land.