RAJANIKANTA PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant against an affirming judgment in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

(2.) Case of the plaintiff is that one Gopi Bisoi was the owner of Ac.24.34 cents of Jeroyati (raiyati) lands in village Nadigam within the Ex-Zamindari(Estate) of Maharaj of Jeypore of Koraput district. He was in cultivating possession of the same. After death of Gopi Bisoi, his son sold the entire 'A' schedule land to Sanku Sundari on 20.1.1940 by means of a registered sale deed bearing no.190/140, Ext.1 and delivered possession. On 10.4.1956 Sanku Sundari sold the land to Raghunath Panda, father of the plaintiff by means of a registered sale deed, Ext.4 and delivered possession. Raghunath Panda and his sons were enjoying the suit land.Rent was paid to the State of Orissa after the estate vested in the State under the Orissa Estate Abolition Act. After death of Raghunath Panda, there was a partition between the plaintiff and his brother. The suit property described in 'A' schedule fell to the share of the plaintiff. Raghunath Panda filed Mutation Case No.49 of 1966 for mutation of 'A' schedule land in his favour. Mutation was allowed in respect of an area Ac.17.18 dec. out of an area Ac. 24.24 dec. i.e., 'B' schedule property. Accordingly R.O.R. was issued. The rest of the land i.e., Ac.7.18 dec. was under possession of the plaintiff. The land had been wrongly recorded in the name of State as "Patita" in settlement R.O.R. published in the year 1954. In the year 1986-1987 the Tahasildar initiated Encroachment Case against the plaintiff. Order of eviction was passed on 2.8.1992. Against the said order, he appealed. The appeal was dismissed on 5.4.1994. Thereafter he filed Revision before the R.D.C., Berhampur, which is sub-judice. It is stated that the predecessors of the plaintiff and the plaintiff were in cultivating possession of the suit land along with the 'B' schedule land openly and continuously for more than the statutory period of 30 years to the knowledge of the State and as such perfected title by way of adverse possession. With this factual scenario, he filed the suit seeking the relief mentioned above.

(3.) The defendants filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It is stated that suit is bad for misjoinder of parties, barred by time and hit under Section 16 of the O.P.L.E.Act. The suit lands were recorded in the name of the State of Orissa in Rakhita Khata No.691/1 since 1954. The same was not challenged. The vendor of the plaintiff had no right and title over the property. Thus the vendee cannot acquire any title. The order passed by the defendants in the encroachment cases are in accordance with law and is binding on the plaintiff.