BIRENDRA NATH DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14.9.2005 and 24.9.2005 respectively passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kendrapara in R.F.A. No. 31 of 2003 confirming the judgment and decree dated 15.7.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Kendrapara in Title Suit No. 221 of 1986.

(2.) The appellants as plaintiffs instituted the suit for declaration of occupancy right over Ac.27.83 decimals of land described in details in the schedule of the plaint. The case of the plaintiffs is that originally the suit land was a part and parcel of Kujanga Estate of Maharaja of Burdhwan. It was an unsurveyed area and locally known as 'Sanatubi' jungle in the last settlement. In the year 1947-48 due to acute shortage of food-grains, the Government granted permission to the ex-landlords to lease out the land by inducting tenants. The then Maharaja of Burdhwan leased out the unsurveyed area after obtaining permission from the Collector. The ancestors of the plaintiffs had approached the Estate Authorities to reclaim and cultivate the suit land. They spent huge amount to fit the land for cultivation in the year 1952. They had also constructed cowsheds and planted fruit bearing trees, dug wells over a portion of it. The Estate Authorities had collected rent in kinds for the year 1957-58 and 1558-59 and also collected salami of Rs. 900/- on 11.11.1952. While the matter stood thus, in the year 1952 the estate vested in the State of Orissa. The ex-landlords did not submit ekpadia in their names. The plaintiffs and their ancestors had approached the Khasmal Tahasildar, Kujanga for acceptance of rent after vesting but it was deferred on plea and other. They had also approached Marsaghai Tahasildar for acceptance of rent as the area came under Marsaghai Tahasil later, but the Tahasildar did not accept the rent. They are residing at a distance of 20 to 25 kilometers from the suit village and taking advantage of it, the suit land was wrongly recorded as jungle. Thereafter, the plaintiffs had preferred their claim before the Forest Settlement Officer and, accordingly, the Forest Settlement Officers excluded the above area from the purview of reservation. They are in possession of the suit land since 1949 from the time of their ancestors as raiyats and, as such they have acquired occupancy right over it.

(3.) Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed a comprehensive written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Apart from challenging the maintainability of the suit on different grounds like limitation, want of cause of action, they also challenged the maintainability of the suit under the provisions of Orissa Act 1 of 1948 and Act 8 of 1947. The specific case of the defendants is that the suit land is a Government land. In the hal R.O.R. published in the year 1966, the same has been recorded in the name of Forest Department of the State. Possession of the plaintiffs and their ancestors has been specifically denied.