NAGARMAL AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff -appellant has filed a suit for declaration of right, title and confirmation of possession over the suit land and fordeclaration that the provisions of Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act do not apply to the suit property. The trial Court decreed the suit which has been reversed by the first appellate Court. The plaintiff -appellant has filed the present appeal.

(2.) THE material question that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the vendor of the plaintiff or the plaintiff thereafter was an intermediary in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff has claimed that his vendor was a raiyat and was holding theright of occupancy according to the Tenancy Law in respect of the suit land. The trial Court upon consideration of the materials on record came to the finding that neither the vendor of the plaintiff nor the plaintiff was an Intermediary and as such the suit land could not vest in the State. The first appellate Court while reversing the finding did not at allconsider the vital and material documents. On record. it has proceeded merely on the basis of the orders passed in the. land encroachment case under the provisions of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act.

(3.) IN course of hearing of the second appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to two decisions reported in AIR 1962 SC 1912(Kumar Bimal Chandra Sinha (deceased) and after him his legal representatives and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors.) and Vol.36 (1978) CLT 1108 (Srimati A. Kameswaramma v. State of Orissa and Anr.) on the question who can be held to be an intermediary. The principles decided in the said cases are to be kept in mind while determining the, main issue -involved in the case.