Abhimanyu Panda vs Digambar Beura

R.N. Misra, J.—This application u/s 115 of the CPC is by the Plaintiff whose suit for title possession and other consequential relief has been held to have abated in view of the provisions of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 21 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') by the learned Munsif.

Defendant made an application in the trial Court that the appropriate notification u/s 3 of the Act having been issued in respect of the village where the disputed property is located, the suit has to abate. Plaintiff resisted the application by contending that the disputed property being homestead land did not come within the mischief of the statute and, therefore, Defendant''s application was liable to be rejected, On an examination of the provisions of the statute, the learned Munsif has come to hold that even homestead land comes within the purview of the Act and, therefore, the present suit has to abate in terms of Section 4(4) of the Act.

There is no dispute that the disputed property is homestead land nor is there a dispute that there has been a notification as provided u/s 3(1) of the Act. Counsel for parties also do not dispute the position that if the disputed property would be covered by the provisions of the statute, abatement would be the consequence in the facts of the base. The only question which has been examined in the trial Court is as to the applicability of the Act to homestead land and the learned Munsif having found that it is applicable and, therefore, the suit has to abate, the Plaintiff challenges the position that homestead land is not covered by the statute.

The Preamble of the Act runs thus:

An Act to provide for consolidation of holdings and prevention of fragmentation of land for development of agriculture in the State of Orissa.

The Statement of Objects and Reasons runs thus:

In the context of strategy for increasing agricultural production in the country and in pursuance there of to give inducement and incentive to the cultivators, it is considered expedient to initiate a legislation for consolidation of scattered holdings and rearrange the holdings including fragmented holdings among various land-owners to make them more compact and to provide against future fragmentation of holdings. This will help in economic farming and application of improved implements and methods of farming which are very necessary for development of agriculture and increased agricultural production.

Some of the definitions in Section 2 of the Act may now be referred to:

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,

(a) ''agriculture'' includes the raising of crops, grass or garden produce horticulture, dairy farming, breeding and keeping of live-stock, pisciculture, poultry farming and use of land as pasture or for forest or for any purpose where such use is ancillary to agriculture;

(b) ''agricultural land'' means land held or occupied for agriculture or for purposes connected with agriculture and includes.

(i) a house or similar structure standing over such land ancillary to agriculture; and

(ii) trees, wells and other improvements existing on such land;

xx xx xx

(f) ''consolidation" means amalgamation and redistribution of a parcel or parcels of agricultural land comprised in different holdings of a unit for the purpose of rendering such holdings more compact;

Explanation - xx xx xx

xx xx xx

(m) ''fragment'' means a compact parcel of agricultural land held by a land owner by himself or jointly with others comprising an area which is less than

xx xx xx

(0) ''land'' means land of whatever description;

xx xx xx

Section 6(2) of the Act provides:

Upon publication in the Official Gazette of the notification under Sub-section (1) and subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, the Assistant Consolidation Officer shall

xx xx xx

(c) determine in consultation with the consolidation Committee the valuation of

(i) ...

(ii) houses, structures, trees, wens and other

improvements existing on such land. "

These are the provisions in the statute which have mainly to be referred to for deciding whether homestead is covered by the statute.

On the basis of the wide definition of ''land'' and use of the word ''house'' in Section 6(2)(c) of the Act, the Defendant contends that a homestead is included within the purview of the Act. On the other hand, Plaintiff''s stand is that the Act purports to deal with agricultural lands only and an analysis of the statutory provisions read in the background of the long title and the Statements of Objects and Reasons, leaves the position beyond doubt that only agricultural lands are sought to be dealt with by the statute. Consolidation of holdings has always been an agrarian measure and the definitions quoted above clearly indicate that the statute seeks to deal with agricultural land as defined in Section 2(b) of the Act. Consolidation is the antithesis of fragmentation. The definitions of these two words are of immense assistance in resolving the problem in hand. Both these definitions refer to agricultural land only. The Explanation under the definition of ''consolidation'' excludes orchards and groves, land which in the opinion of the Director of Consolidation IS not fit for cultivation and such other areas as the Director of Consolidation may declare to be unsuitable for the purpose of consolidation. Nothing turns on the wide definition of the term ''land'' Section 2(0) of the Act, because in the material definitions what has been used is not ''land'' but ''agricultural land'' or ''land which is fit for cultivation''. Reference to houses in Section 6(2)(c) obviously means such houses as are located on agricultural properties and used as farm houses. Admittedly the disputed property is not a farm house but is located within the village and is a residential homestead.

On the analysis presented above, there is no scope to dispute the contention advanced on behalf of the Plaintiff Petitioner that homestead land is not covered by the Act and, therefore, a suit with reference to such homestead land is not to abate on the basis of a notification made u/s 3(1) of the Act. The learned Munsif came to an erroneous conclusion on a wrong interpretation of the relevant provisions in the statute. The net effect, therefore, is that the suit does not abate and the lis is available to be adjudicated in accordance with law.

7, The Civil Revision application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The suit shall stand restored on the file of the trial Court to be disposed of in accordance with law. Plaintiff-Petitioner shall be entitled to is costs of this application. Hearing fee is assessed at rupees fifty.