STATE OF ORISSA Vs. UMA CHARAN SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants are the appellants against a confirming judgment.

(2.) Respondent as plaintiff instituted the suit for a declaration that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property since the year 1950 when his father was permitted to plant fruit bearing trees and none has any right on it. The case of the plaintiff is that his father Hadu Sahu approached the Tahasildar, Surada-defendant no.2 to permit him to plant fruit bearing trees on the suit schedule land. Permission was accorded to him on 19.7.1950 under L.Dis. No. 1909/50. Thereafter his father planted fruit bearing trees. Two years thereafter his father requested defendant no. 2 for consignment of the suit land. The defendant no.2 directed the R.I. to initiate consignment proceedings. While the matter stood thus, the settlement operation, where the land falls, started in the year 1980. The defendant no. 2 objected for issuance of patta in the name of the plaintiff on the ground that the suit land is "River Poromboke", which is objectionable. It is further stated that the plaintiff and his father being the lawful possession over the suit property for more than thirty years, to the knowledge of the defendants, they were estopped from stating that the land was objectionable. After issuance of notice under Section 80 C.P.C., he instituted the suit.

(3.) Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed a comprehensive written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The specific case of the defendants is that the suit was undervalued. In the year 1950 permission was granted to the father of the plaintiff to grow fruit bearing trees on the suit schedule land along with one Bamadeb Panda. The assertion of the plaintiff that his plaintiff applied for assignment of the land in his favour in the year 1952 has been denied. The defendant no. 2 had never directed the R.I. to start assignment proceedings. The plaintiff admitted that possession of the suit land is permissive. He has no right over the suit land. The defendant no.2 initiated proceeding under the O.P.L.E. Act, being E.C. No. 281/73.74, against the plaintiff and the same is pending. No prayer has been made to quash the said proceedings.