ADWAIT CHARAN PATNAIK Vs. PRANABANDHU MOHAPATRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant in both these appeals. Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and for a declaration that the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer dated 12 -5 -1975 passed in appeal under the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act and the revisions! order of the Additional District Magistrate dated 12 -5 -1976 passed under the said Act are illegal. Invalid and without jurisdiction and further prayed for recovery of possession, mesne profits and for permanent injunction.

(2.) PLAINTIFF 's case is based on the ground that the suit land comprising of three plots, plot Nos. 1157, 1158 and 1159 under Chata No. 359/1 had been leased out in favour of the plaintiff by the Tahasildar under the provisions of the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act and plaintiff's name had been mutated and he had paid the royalty for the same. But against the order of settlement, defendants 1 and 5 preferred an appeal and the appellate authority, namely, the Sub -Divisional Officer, allowed the appeal and set aside the settlement made in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff preferred a revision to the Additional District Magistrate, but that revision was dismissed and hence plaintiff filed the present suit for the reliefs as stated earlier. Defendants filed their written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and further averred that they were in possession of plot Nos. 1157 and 1158 on the basis of occupation permit granted to them much prior to the lease of the plaintiff. It was also their case that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to set aside or interfere with the orders of the appellate and revisional authorities under the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act.

(3.) THE learned Munsif framed seven issues. On the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court he held that the Civil Court's jurisdiction is not barred to decide the legality of the order passed by the appellate authority or the revisional authority under the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act. He further found that the lease granted in favour of the plaintiff in respect of plot Nos. 1157 and 1158 was illegal since by that time defendants 1 to 4 were possessing the land on the basis of occupation permit granted to them and accordingly dismissed the plaintiffs suit. But so far as plot No. 1159 is concerned, he found that there WaS no evidence to the effect that occupation permit had bean granted to defendant No. 5 and, therefore, the plaintiff's lease so far as plot No. 1159 is concerned must be held to be valid. On these findings, he decreed the suit in part so far as it relates to plot No. 1159 and dismissed the suit so far as it relates to the other two plots.