KAMAL SUNDAR PATTNAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gajapati-Parlakhemundi in T.A. No. 15 of 2000 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Parlakhemundi in Title Suit No. 150 of 1998.

(2.) The appellant as the plaintiff had filed the suit arraigning the respondents as defendants for declaration of his right, title, interest and possession over the suit and with further declaration that the encroachment proceeding initiated vide LEC No. 03 of 1980 and 2159/1982 are void and also for a permanent injunction against the respondent-defendants.

(3.) Plaintiffs case is that the suit land as per the description given in the plaint was purchased by his father way back in the year 1962-63. It originally belonged to Parlakhemudi Zamindari under the ownership of Raja Krushna Chandra Gajapati Deo of Parlakhemundi. It is stated that he had hold the same to one Raghab Charan Pattnaik by registered sale-deed in the year 1961-62, who in turn sold those lands to plaintiff's father by registered sale-deed dated 23.12.1962 and 21.08.1963 and since then plaintiffs father remained in cultivating possession of the suit land which being succeeded by the plaintiff continued to be as such in his hands. It is alleged that in the year 1980, Tahasildar, Parlakhemundi initiated an encroachment proceeding bearing LEC No. 03 of 1980 against the plaintiffs father in respect of land under plot No. 940 and 973 which were not in the possession of the plaintiff and thus he had no interest over the same and kept no track about the final order. Against in the year 1992, the Land Encroachment Case No. 2159 of 1992 was initiated against the plaintiff in respect of five plots and that proceeding was also in respect of these suit plots as also land under other plots. So, the plaintiff therein advanced his claim over three plots i.e., plot No. 940, 942 and 973. It is stated that his claim was not duly considered and arbitrarily the order of eviction was passed. However, physically, he was never evicted. It is also alleged that in the last settlement operation, the land has been erroneously recorded in Government's Abadajogya Anabadi Khata as then the father could not produce any document. However, it is stated that the father of the plaintiff as well as the plaintiff all along remained in possession of the suit land and at no point of time, the State was ever in possession of the same being not its owner.