LAW FOR ALL

whether under Section 4(4) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Administration of Land Act, 1972 (for short `the 1972 Act’) a final decree stood abated. The Full Bench referred to the notification issued under Section 3(1) of the 1972 Act, scanned the language employed in sub-section (4) of Section 4 and came to hold that a final decree proceeding cannot be characterized as a suit or a proceeding for right, title or interest in respect of any land. It has been opined there that Section 4(4) does not include an appeal arising out of a final decree as the same would not declare any right, title or interest of the parties but deal with certain matters pertaining to what has already been declared. Pendency of an appeal against the final decree cannot take away the finality of the preliminary decree which has already declared the rights, title and interest of the parties. We may repeat for clarity that in the said case, the preliminary decree passed in the suit had become final as it was not challenged by way of an appeal. Thus, the factual matrix was quite different. Suffice it to say that in the present case the title appeal was pending against the preliminary decree and an application under Section 4(c) had been preferred. It would have been advisable on the part of the appellate court to record a finding that the entire proceeding of the civil suit stood abated. Unfortunately, the appellate court directed abatement because of non-substitution of the legal heirs of one of the respondents. We are conscious that an order is to be passed on an application filed under Section 4 (c) of the Act, but we do not intend to relegate the matter to that stage as it is obvious that in the suit, right, title and interest and status were involved which do come within the scheme of consolidation. Hence, the suit as well as the appeal abated and resultantly the very commencement of the civil proceeding came to a naught and, therefore, findings recorded in the said proceeding became extinct. The learned Judge dealing with the writ petition as well as the learned Judges deciding the intra-court appeal did not appreciate the lis in proper perspective and opined that the reliance on the findings recorded by the civil court by the revisional authority under the 1956 Act could not be faulted. The said conclusion is wholly erroneous and deserves to be overturned and we do so. 37. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the orders passed by the learned single Judge as well as of the Division Bench are set aside and the matter is remanded to the file of the learned single Judge to decide the matter on merits on the basis of the material brought before the Consolidation Authorities. We repeat at the cost of repetition that none of the findings recorded by the civil court shall be taken aid of. There shall be no order as to costs.