SRIKANTHA MANDAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) THIS Civil Revision is disposed of on consent and participation of both the parties, at the stage of admission.

(3.) PETITIONER filed O. S. No. 434 of 1996 -1, inter alia with the prayer for declaration of his right, title and interest on the suit property described in the schedule of the plaint. He filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. registered as Misc. Case No. 584 of 1996 with the prayer to restrain the State Government represented through the Collector, Balasore and the Tahasildar, Baliapal not to evict him from the suit land and accordingly to issue an order of interim injunction. In that respect case of the plaintiff is that he is in possession of the suit land from the days of his father and matured his possessory title against the State. Though in the impugned orders of the courts below it has been noted that in the pleading of the petitioner he has stated about his possessionover 12 years, but learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the plaint petitioner has clearly averred about such possession since last 50 years (by the date of filing of the suit). The admitted position on record is that the disputed land has been recorded as 'Gramya Jungle' belonging to reserved category. The defendants/ opposite party members while contesting the application for injunction, advanced the contention that the claim of the plaintiff of long possession is a myth. Accordingly to them plaintiff made encroachment of the suit land in the year 1996 and since it is objectionable and illegal, therefore, Land Encroachment Case No. 7 of 1997 was initiated against him and when the plaintiff did not appear and participate in that proceeding initiated under the provision in Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 (in short, 'the Act, 1972'), therefore, that proceeding terminated against the plaintiff with an order of eviction. Defendants also advanced the plea that since a pond and the ridge of that pond exist on a portion of the disputed premises and the land has been recorded as 'Rakhit' in the Hal settlement, therefore, the claim of the plaintiff behind the back of the villagers will cause injustice to them and should not be entertained unless the villagers are made parties to the proceeding.