STATE OF ORISSA Vs. DAITARI SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by learned Subordinate Judge, Rourkela in Title Appeal No. 8 of 1985 confirming the judgment and decree passed by learned Munsif, Bonai in Title Suit No. 6 of 1984.

(2.) THE present respondents, as plaintiffs, filed Title Suit No. 6 of 1984 in the Court of learned Munsif, Bonai asking for declaration of their right and title over the suit property and also for declaration that the institution of Encroachment Case No. 116 of 1984 under O.P.L.E. Act for their eviction from the suit land is null and void and without any jurisdiction. Prayer for permanent injunction restraining the present appellants from evicting respondents from the suit land was also sought for. The case of the plaintiffs is essence, is that, their father was the owner in possession and recorded tenant in respect of the suit land, but in the current settlement inadvertently the said land was recorded in the name of the State. The plaintiffs filed mutation case before the Tahasildar, Bonai for deleting the name of the State and to record their names in respect of the suit land, but their prayer was rejected, whereafter they preferred appeal but the appeal was also rejected. Taking advantage of such entry in the record of right of Hal Settlement, the Tahsildar, Bonai initiated Encroachment Case No. 116 of 1984 under the provisions of O.P.L.E. Act for their eviction from the suit land and in that proceeding show cause notice under Section 7 of the O.P.L.E. Act was issued seeking their summary eviction. So, finding no other alternative, they filed the suit asking for the aforementioned reliefs.

(3.) LEARNED trial Court framed as many as six issues and accepted evidence of the parties. Plaintiffs relied on the oral evidence of P.W. 1 and documents Exts. 1 to 5. No evidence, oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of the defendants. On perusing the evidence and surrounding circumstances, the trial Court decreed the suit with the observation that the plaintiffs' father was the recorded tenant of the suit land and note of possession in favour of the plaintiffs was there in the 1943 settlement but during current settlement, the suit land was recorded in the name of the State Government by mistake, that the Tahasildar was not justified in initiating Encroachment case and that Section 16 of the O.P.L.E. Act does not operate as a bar to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The learned 1st appellate Court also confirmed the above noted findings. The defendants have therefore come up with the present appeal.