FAKIRMOHAN PRATIHARI Vs. BAURIBANDBU PATTNAIK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is in appeal against the reversing judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Nayagarh in a suit for title and possession.

(2.) THE disputed property -2.25 acres of agricultural land forming part of plot No. 401 of Mouza Basudia -belonged to Lord Jagannath of Puri and was recorded as Amritmonohi. Plaintiff was inducted as a tenant in 1960 on payment of salami of Rs. 900/. (vide Ext. 1) and annual rent of Rs. 14.94 (vide rent receipts under Ext. 2 series). Plaintiff maintained that he acquired raiyati status and remained in cultivating possession. Defendant No. 1 without any basis raised false claim of tenancy and the local Revenue Officer entertained that claim under the provisions of the Orissa Land Reforms Act and held that the Plaintiff did not have raiyati status and Defendant No. 1 was a tenant under the State. Plaintiff contended that the Revenue Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim and the decision was without authority of law. He, therefore, wanted declaration of title and recovery of possession.

(3.) THE trial Court found that there was a lease in favour of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff had occupancy status in regard to the disputed property. It found that the Revenue Officer had usurped the jurisdiction in entertaining the claim of Defendant No. 1 and held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Accordingly, it decreed the claim disallowing compensation.