RAMKUMAR LILADHAR FIRM Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS case, as narrated in the plaint, is as follows: For providing additional accommodation for the Orissa Government Press and for its smooth running the district Magistrate of Cuttack (defendant 2) requisitioned plaintiff's house, containing four big rooms with a verandah and two side rooms standing on a portion of plot No. 12, fully described in schedule A of the plaint, by his orders (Ex. 3) dated 20-12-43 and (Ex. 2) dated 14 10 44 Since then the Superintendent orissa Government Press (defendant 3) is in occupation of the house on payment of rent at the rate of Rs 125 per month. The disputed property measures 75 ft. in length and 35 ft. in breadth. It was a vacant land lying to the north of the requisioned house with several valuable fruit-bearing trees standing on it. On 296-50 defendant 3 got the trees cut down without the permission of the plaintiff and despite protests and made certain constructions. Plaintiff demanded removal of the un authorised constructions and payment of com pensation at the rate of rs. 175 per month. As the Government did not remove the constructions nor paid compensation, the suit is for declaration of title, recovery of possession by removal of the structures and for recovery of Rs. 6300 as damages and compensation with other reliefs.

(2.) WHILE admitting that the building had been requisitioned, defendants asserted that the attached premises were also requisitioned. The requisition order (Ex. 2) is continuing even till today by operation of law. Thus the disputed land is claimed to be a part of the requisitioned property. It is admitted that a temporary shed had been constructed on the suit property at the costs of the Government for the purpose of Government Press. Permission of the plaintiff was not necessary for making such construction as this suit properly is a requisitioned property. Defendants admit plaintiff's title to the property and state that the plaintiff is being paid monthly compensation on that basis. The construction of the shed on the disputed property is not an act of trespass and the defendants are not liable to remove the constructions until the property is released from requisition.

(3.) ISSUE No. 4 was the main issue. It is to the effect "was the suit property requisitioned by the State Government" After discussing the relevant documentary and oral evidence in paragraphs 7 to 22 of the judgment, the learned trial court recorded the following finding: ". . . house including the open space in the front of it including, the suit land was requisitioned. "