BIDYADHAR ROUL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant. Suit is for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession in respect of the suit land and for permanent injunction with further prayer to declare that the order of eviction dated 9/ 10-8-1982 passed by defendant No. 2 in O.P.P. Case No. 9 of 1975 is illegal, arbitrary, unlawful, inoperative and unenforceable in law.

(2.) In the plaint it has been averred that the suit land belonged to the Government which was a low land wherein water was accumulating. Plaintiff, a landless person, in or about 1944 possessed the suit land by filling up the watery low land and improved it by spending a huge amount and occupied the same by constructing a house thereon. In view of the long possession of the plaintiff, the suit land had also been recorded in his favour in the settlement records. The suit land is neither required for any developmental purpose or any other purpose of the Government. In the month of April, 1975 defendant No. 2 issued a notice under S.4(1) of the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and thereafter initiated O.P.P. case No. 9 of 1975 seeking eviction. It is further averred that the provision of the said Act is not applicable to the suit land nor defendant No. 2 has the jurisdiction in the matter, therefore, the entire proceeding is to be declared as null and void. It is further prayed that since the plaintiff was in possession by the date of the eviction for more than the statutory period of 39 years, he had already prefected his title in respect of the suit land by adversely possessing the same.

(3.) The defendants filed a written statement. In the written statement it is averred that the suit is not maintainable in view of S. 14 of the Act which mandates that for any order made under the Act for which there is provision under the Act the same shall not be questioned in any original suit or proceeding. In the written statement it is further asserted that in view of the admission of the plaintiff that he had filed application before the authorities for granting lease in his favour, the question of adverse possession does not arise and the plaintiff never perfected title by way of adverse possession.