HANSRAJ KOOVERJI RATHOR Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of his right of occupancy in respect of the property in dispute and for injunction restraining the defendants from taking possession of the said property and for further declaration that the revenue authority has no jurisdiction to deal with the property, inasmuch as the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act are not applicable.

(2.) The property in question stands recorded in settlement in the name of one Banchhanidhi Sahu who had occupancy right in the same by virtue of his purchases in the year 1921-22 from different persons who had also occupancy right therein. Banchhanidhi subsequently acquired a small share of proprietary interest in the suit Touzi to the extent of 10 Pies and 16 Krantis. In the year 1930, Banchhanidhi mortgaged the disputed land along with other undisputed occupancy holdings as well as his proprietary interest to one Raghu Karsan. In 1935, said Raghu Karsan purchased the entire mortgaged property in an execution sale and took possession of the same through court. In 1940, Raghu Karsan sold the raiyati land to Kooverji Karson, father of the plaintiff and Kooverji continued to possess the same as a raiyat. In 1944, the plaintiff became owner of the suit property by virtue of a family partition and has been in full and khas possession of the same as occupancy raiyat since then. The plaintiff continued in possession as occupancy raiyat for more than twenty five years. After abolition of the estate, when there was publication of notice under Section 5 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, the plaintiff became aware of the fact that there was erroneous and incorrect entry in the settlement papers in respect of the disputed land as Nijehas land and in consequence of that a proceeding under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act was started. The Tahsildar ordered to take possession of the land under the provisions of the said Act. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildar, the plaintiff filed appeal before the Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack, but the appeal was disallowed. It is claimed that the plaintiff having acquired occupancy right over the land, the provisions of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act are not applicable and the entry in the settlement record of rights in respect of the disputed land as Nijehas land is erroneous.

(3.) The State of Orissa is the only defendant in the suit. In the written statement, it is contended that the suit is barred by limitation and is hit by the provisions of Section 39 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. The claim of the plaintiff that he is in khas possession of the disputed property as an occupancy raiyat has been denied. It is asserted that the entry in the record-of-rights is correct. The plaintiff has accepted the position of correctness of the entry by preferring claim under Sections 6 and 7 of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act and, as such, the suit is to be dismissed.