CHANDRAKETU HIAL Vs. TAHASILDAR, BISSAM, CUTTACK AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellant before this Court. They challenge the judgment and decree passed by the learned ad hoc Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Gunpur in R.F.A. No. 16 of 2002 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gunpur in Title Suit No. 7 of 1999.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the Court below.

(3.) Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are the wife and son of one Late Syam Sundar Hial. It is their case that said Syam Sundar Hial had purchased the land of an extent of Ac. 8.96 cents, which is the suit land from one Krupasindhu Madala for a consideration of Rs. 100.00 by registered sale deed dated 12.11.1960. Pursuant to the said sale Syam Sundar Hial had taken delivery of possession and remained in possession as its owner till his death in the year 1994. The plaintiff being his legal heir thereafter continued to possess the same without any disturbance from any quarter. The Tahasildar (defendant No. 1) initiated Encroachment Case No. 91 of 1996-95 and an appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs challenging the order of eviction. In that case there was a direction for settlement of the land in favour of the plaintiff in consonance with the Government order dated 2.6.1974 if so permissible. It is stated that the defendant No. 1 (Tahasildar) instead of settling the land, again initiated two encroachment cases in order to evict the plaintiffs. So, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of their right, title and interest and possession over the suit land with further prayer to declare the encroachment proceedings as untenable in the eye of law. The defendant-State contested the suit. It is stated that the suit land is a piece of Government land and in the record of right, it has been so recorded. The title of the plaintiffs as claimed on the basis of purchase of the land from Krupasindhu Madala is denied. The possession of the plaintiffs so far as the suit land is concerned since the year 1960 as asserted has also been refuted. It is stated that the suit has been instituted with an eye over the property in order to grab it. It is further averred that the suit land is not amenable to settlement since its kisam is Bada-Jungle and Mango tope standing in Rakhita Khata. It is further stated that the plaintiffs were evicted in encroachment cases and thereafter are unnecessarily carrying on with speculative litigation.