ANGIRA MISHRA Vs. RASMITA HOTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'the Code'), seeks to assail the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2020 and 31.07.2020 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Boudh in R.F.A. No.07 of 2015(T). By the same; the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2015 and 03.03.2015 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Boudh, in C.S. No.3 of 2011 have been confirmed. The Plaintiff thus having been unsuccessful in both the Court below is now before this Court with in the Second Appeal.

(2.) For the sake of convenience and clarity as also to avoid confusion; the parties hereinafter have been referred to in the same rank as assigned to them in the original proceeding before the Trial Court.

(3.) The Plaintiff's case is that he is in possession of the land under Plot No.629 which corresponds to sabik Plot No.242 under Khata No.46 measuring an area of Ac.0.22 decimals. It is his case that such area of Ac.0.22 decimals as it was in the sabik record of right, without any justification and reason, has been abruptly reduced by Ac.0.04 decimals and thus stood recorded to the extent of Ac.0.018 decimals. It is the specific case of the Plaintiff that his father, during his lifetime, had provided a strip of land of 140 ft. in length and 7-8 ft. in breadth measuring around Ac.0.02 decimals to the poor and landless people who were residing in a Basti over the Government land so as to provide then the access to the PWD Road. It is said that the passage was including the land under Hal Plot No.586 which was being used by those Basti people. It is the very case of the Plaintiff that his father had relinquished the passage in favour of the local gentries in a meeting convened by the then Sarpanch and to that effect, on 17.12.1992, he had executed a document. In course of time, that Basti was shifted from the place and all those Basti people left the place on being rehabilitated on some other land at another place. So, it is said that the land which was left as passage by the father of the Plaintiff was no more used as passage as such user was no more the need. The Plaintiff thus claims to have resumed the possession of the said land to the knowledge of all. However, taking advantage of the absence of the Plaintiff, during Consolidation Operation, some persons in enmical terms with the Plaintiff, have manipulated the village map in so far as the land under Plot No.629 is concerned. It is further stated that the Plaintiff, to meet his legal necessity, had alienated the land measuring Ac.0.05 decimals to the Defendant No.2 as also to Defendant Nos.3 and 4 under separate registered sale deeds from out of that land under Plot No.629 and had delivered possession of the same to them. It is also said that the Plaintiff had transferred Ac.0.03 decimals of land to one Dilip Kumar Rout by registered sale deed of the year 2003, i.e, one year after the other two. The transferees have accordingly mutated their land and obtained separate record of rights. The Plaintiff state that recitals in those sale deeds especially in respect of the boundary of the land sold shown under those sale deeds have not been indicated correctly as per the boundary given by the Plaintiff. So, it is said that taking advantage of that, the Defendant No.1 has encroached upon the entire passage belonging to the Plaintiff for which the Suit has been filed.