BAHUDA SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff ­ appellant against a confirming judgment in a suit for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession, in the alternative, for recovery of possession.

(2.) THIS Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law : -

(3.) THE plaintiff ­ appellant's case was that the land in dispute, was under the ex -proprietor of Patia, which was subsequently acquired by the Raja of Kanika in the year 1942. The suit land was recorded Anabadi non -cultivable, kisam (Jhati jungle). After vesting of the Estate, the ex -intermediary submitted Ekpadia in the name of the plaintiff's father, which was accepted by the State and on that basis, the plaintiff's father was paying rent to the Government till 1965. In 1973 settlement ROR the land measuring an area Ac.9.60 decimals in Mouza ­ Chandrasekharpur, which is the disputed property, was recorded in the name of the Government. When the defendants claimed possession over the property and disputed the possession of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed a suit. The State, in its written statement, denied the claim of the plaintiff, inter alia, pleading that after vesting of the property, the same belongs to the State. The Tenants Ledger was disputed by the defendants ­ State and it was averred that the land was given to the Orissa State Housing Board (OSHB), which was the defendant in the suit. The G.A. Department, which was the owner of the property, also subsequently leased out a part of it to the State Bank of India for construction of staff quarters as per the registered lease deeds dated 21.03.1989 and 21.02.1992 and the defendant No.3 ­ State Bank of India is in possession over it since 26.10.1992 and has raised a boundary wall. In the ROR of 1973 and 1988, the name of the Government, i.e., G.A. Department has been recorded. Thus, the plaintiff has no subsisting right, title and interest or possession over the suit property. The documents are all created, fabricated and manufactured and not genuine. During the course of argument, various contentions were made by the respective parties with regard to the question of law, on which this Second Appeal has been admitted.