D NARAYANAMMA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant against a reversing judgment in a suit for declaration of right, title and interest and permanent injunction, in alternative for a direction to the defendants to settle the land in her favour.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that the suit land originally belonged to one Ananta Satapathy. Her father purchased the same by means of a registered sale deed on 8.1.1941. The suit land being a rayati land, her father acquired occupancy right over the same by virtue of the Madras Estate Land Act. During settlement operation of the year 1954-55, the settlement staffs illegally omitted to record the land in the name of her father. But then her father, who was in possession of the land, used to pay rent to the Maharaja of Jeypore. Her father died in the year 1958. She succeeded to the properties. While the matter stood thus, the Tahasildar, Jeypore initiated Encroachment Case No.2103 of 1991 against her on the ground that the suit land had been recorded as "Patita" in the record of right. She appeared in the case and contended that the suit land was a rayati land, but order of eviction was passed. She filed O.P.L.E. Appeal No.1 of 1992 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jeypore. The appeal was dismissed. Thereafter the Tahasildar, Jeypore issued notice to her to vacate the land. It is further pleaded that the suit land being a rayati land, the same had not been vested in the Government. Thus, initiation of proceeding under the OPLE Act was without jurisdiction. With this factual scenario, she instituted the suit after issuing notice under Sec.80 C.P.C.

(3.) Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendant nos.2 to 4 filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It is pleaded that the registered sale deed no.19/1941 does not cover suit plot no.265. It was never a rayati land of the father of the plaintiff. They had not acquired occupancy right over it. The kissam of the land was 'Patita'. The same was recorded in the name of the Government of Orissa in the ROR. As the plaintiff encroached upon Ac.1.20 cents of land, O.P.L.E. Case No.3103/91 was initiated against her. Order of eviction was passed and penalty of Rs.363.70 was imposed on her. She preferred OPLE Appeal No.1/92 before the S.D.O., Jeypore and lost. After disposal of the appeal, she deposited Rs.406.30 towards penalty with interest. She had not preferred any revision against the said appeal. The suit is not maintainable under Sec.16 of the OPLE Act.