A. Pasayat, J.
1. Order passed by the Consolidation Officer, Raghunathpur in a proceeding Under Section 9 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (in short, the 'Act') is primarily the subject-matter of challenge. Addition- ally it is submitted that the officers appointed under the Act to exercise various functions are not well equipped to deal with the complicated questions of fact and law, and therefore, the authorities who are expected to substitute the judicial officers trying suits in Civil Courts, by and large are deficient and as a result the administration of justice has become a casualty.
2. Before we deal with the larger question relating to functioning of the officers appointed under the Act, it is necessary to deal with the main challenge.
The fact situation is almost undisputed. Objection Case Mo. 3256/730 of 1989 was filed Under Section 9 (3) of the Act by 35 persons who are arraigned as opposite party Nos. 6 to 40 in this writ application. The four petitioners along with pro forma opposite party Nos. 41 and 42 are the defendants in the said objection case The dispute revolves round a tank situated in mouza Dharadharpur appertaining to sabik plot No. 478 in sabik khata No. 127 of the said mouza, which corresponds to plot No. 547 in khata No. 925 so far as the settlement of 1983 is concerned. The oresent opposite parties 6 to 40 (hereinafter referred to as the 'objectors') questioned correctness of entries in the records. The petitioners in the present writ application filed their defence statement putting forth their claims in that regard. Though dated 17-3-1990, it was filed on 4-4-1990. After filing of the defence statement, the objectors filed another statement which was nomenclatured as 'written statement of the objectors'. Acceptability of this statement is the subject-matter of challenge. The defendants raised objection to acceptability of such a statement on the ground that filing of such statement is not authorised in law. Their plea in essence was that stand taken by objectors in their claim petition originally filed was sought to be varied by averments in the so-called written statement which is at complete variance with that taken in original claim petition. The objectors took the stand that statement styled as written statement was filed to clarify certain averments which were originally there in the claim petition. But clarification was necessary because of stand taken by some of the defendants. The Consolidation Officer was of the view that procedure is handmaid of justice and cause of justice can never be allowed to be obviated by any procedural technicalities, and written statement filed by the objectors being in the nature of clarifica- tion, same can be accepted for consideration.
3. According to Mr. Mohanty for the petitioners, a bare reading of the 'written statement'' indicates that the assertions are materially different in substance and essence. According to him specific case of the objectors cannot be known because of the varying claims made. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that as rightly observed by the Consolidation Officer, technicalities should not stand on the way of dispensation of justice. The written statement filed is explanatory in nature and th9 stand of the objectors is positive, and not vaccilating and no prejudice has been caused to the defendants. According to the learned counsel for objectors, the written statement was in essence an amendment of the original claim petition to incorporate relevant claims.
4. Taking of inconsistent pleas is not prohibited in law. As stipulated in Order 6, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'CPC') inconsistent pleas can be taken provided the plaint is amended. Right, title and interest in the property is to be adjudicated by the authorities under the Act. Application of CPC to the proceedings under the Act is limited to the extent provided in Sec, 44 of the Act, and Rule 3 of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Rules, 1973 (in short, the 'Rules'). Where the object is that the questions relating to right, title and interest in the property shall be adjudicated by the authorities under the Act, it is appropriate that all relevant facts and materials should be before the adjudicating authorities so that an effective and proper adjudication can be made. In such matters technicality should not be considered relevant and nomenclature should not be treated to be decisive. Where civil rights are to be adjudicated procedures akin to those provided in CPC by and large are is to be followed unless they are at variance with those specifically set out in the Act and the Rules. By adoption of those procedures no prejudice to the parties is likely to be caused. Provisions of CPC and the Indian Evidence Act. 1872 (in short, the 'Evidence Act') should be kept in view by the adjudicating authorities though the Act and the Rules do not provide their application except to limited extent. Authorities should proceed keeping in view principles and requirements of principles of natural justice, Observance of rule of law is of vital importance and is compulsory not only for those who are to obey the law but also for those who are to enforce the law. Principles of natural justice constitute heart beat of rule of Jaw. They supplement law. For over a century. Courts have been at pains to lay down principles to guide authorities who have to decide questions in judicial or quasi-judicial manner and the insistence has always been on adherance to principles of natural justice.
5. It is appropriate that the parties present their claim with exactitude, so that the other side know(s) what he or she or they is or are required to meet. The acceptability of the plea is a matter of adjudication. The effect of making varying claims and taking inconsistent pleas is to be adjudicated in the proceeding itself. The learned counsel for objectors states that the objectors shall file a consolidated claim petition incorporating their definite claims so that the defendants can know the case they are required to meet. We accept the prayer and permit the objectors to file a consolidated claim petition containing the claims within two months. The Consolidation Officer shall thereafter grant a reasonable time to the defendants to file any additional defence statement if they so choose and thereafter proceed to dispose of the objections in accordance with law.
6. That leaves us with the plea that the proceedings are becoming empty formalities, with persons ill-equipped to handle the proceedings manning the posts. The desirabllity to have officers with legal training or at least legal bent of mind cannot be gainsaid. Functions of Civil Courts are being presently exercised by authorities under the Act. They are in essence substitutes of the judicial officers. Though it cannot be said that the orders of judicial officers are blemishless, yet experience shows that standard of the orders passed by the authorities under the Act leave much to be desired. In many instances, orders patently show lack of rudimentary and fundamental knowledge of law. Sections 44 and 47 of the Act stipulate that the powers of Civil Court are to be exercised by the authorities under the Act, and the authorities hearing any application, appeal or revision do so as Revenue Courts. The Court is a. temple of justice. The Presiding Officers are the priests who are required to maintain the sanctity of the temple. Curia (Court) is a place where justice is judicially ministered. (See Shell Co. of Australia Federal Court 1931 AC 275), and is derived a Cura quia in curt is publicis curas gerebant. (Co. Litt. 58a). Courts too have a constituency, the nation and a manifesto, the constitution and the rule of law. Secs 44 and 47 of the Act show that the powers of the Civil Courts are to be exercised by the authorities under the Act and therefore, in essence they are substitutes of Civil Courts. Substitute, substitutus, are placed under another to transact or do same business, taw is not an end in itself, nor does it provide ends. It is pre-eminently a means to serve what we think is right. Brennan, J. in Roth v. United States of America ; (1953) 354 US 476). Justice should not only be done, it must appear that it is done. People who go before the authorities must go there with a feeling that they are going to get substantial and effective justice. They should not come back with a feeling that the adjudicatory machinery prescribed under the Statute is a mockery. They would lose their faith in the system if they find that the Presiding Officers are deficient in the matter of appreciation of facts or points of law. Their approach should be rationalistic and attitude reformative. It is fairly accepted by the learned counsel for the parties including the learned counsel for State, that complicated questions of fact and law are adjudicated by these authorities. The question is whether they are in a position to make effective adjudication. Many instances were highlighted before us where this Court had expressed its anguish over the lack of fundaments of the Presiding Officers. A few of them are Narayan Mishra and Ors. v. Bauri Sahu and Anr. (OJC No. 1119 of 1985 disposed of on 5-8-1991), Uchhaba Behera v. Kumara Behera and Ors. (OJC No, 359 of 1936 disposed of on 9-5-1991) and Jagannath Sahoo v. Commissioner of Consolidation, Sambalpur at Bhubaneswar and Ors. (OJC No. 1131 of 1990 disposed of on 16-7-1993). Instances of such lack of fundaments in law are not rare. As a matter of such lack of fundaments and rudiments of law were highlighted by this Court in Raghunath Mukhi v. Chakra. pant Mukhi (dead) and after him Musa Bewa and Ors. : 1992 (I) OLR 191, and Sarbeswar Rath and Anr. v. Consolidation Officer and Ors. : 1992 (II) OLR 362. The learned counsel for State submitted that the officers appointed are competent officers. 'Competence' is a subjective term. One may be competent in one branch of life. One may be a good doctor, or a good engineer, but his competence in the field of medicine and engineering can be of no assistance to him if he is appointed as an authority to function under the Act. We should not be understood to tend that all judicial officers are equipped to deal with such matters. As someone has said that knowledge is a vast ocean and by standing in its shore one can collect a few pebbles, and not even venture to go inside the ocean. But that cannot be an excuse for vesting authorities with. powers which require that the person must have basic knowledge and capability to decide the disputes that come before him. As Cliver Wendell Holmes has said : 'it is sometimes more important to emphasize the obvious then to elucidate the obscure.' Intention of legislature is to clothe authorities with power of adjudication. Law has to be implemented in a manner consistent with object and purpose of the enactment. The Act has created a hierarchy of forums, namely, original, appellate and revisional. It is submitted by learned counsel for State that if a person is aggrieved by the original order, he can move the appellate forum, and if he is still agrieved by the order of the appellate authority, he can move the revisional authority. Question is not of availability of forum, but whether any of the forums is really acting as true adjudicator of the dispute. Experiences show that even the appellate and the revisional authority, not to speak of the original authority lack in fundaments and rudiments of law. It is submitted by the learned counsel for State that trainings are imparted to the officers. Training must be effective, and not merely an eye-wash. The result of the training should manifest itself in the adjudication. The State cannot wash off its hands by saying that it has provided for training facilities for the officers. The anguish expressed by this Court in Raghunath Mukhi's case (supra) does not appear to have been taken note of by the State, otherwise rapid increase of number of writ applications challenging correctness of orders passed by authorities under the Act would not have been there. We echo the sentiments expressed by the learned Judges in Raghunath Mukhi's case (supra). The command to appoint officers having legal background, well-versed or trained in law does not appear to have bean taken note of. It is high time that the State does something positive in the matter to restore fast vanishing faith of people on the herarchy of adjudicators prescribed in the Statute.
Copies of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Orissa, and the Secretary to the Government of Orissa in the Revenue Department.
The writ application is accordingly disposed of.
D.M. Patnaik, J.
7. I agree.