CHINTAMANI ROUT Vs. COLLECTOR, KALAHANDI & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2005 and 01.03.2005 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Kalahandi-Nuapada at Bhawanipatna in R.F.A. No 16 of 2003 affirming the judgment and decree dated 02.07.2003 and 14.07.2003 respectively passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhawanipatna in T.S. No. 01 of 2002.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that originally the suit land was "Anabadi Akarmanya". His forefathers had constructed a kutcha house and stayed there. They occupied the suit land for more than 85 years. They were illiterate. They could not take steps to record the land in their favour. He is in peaceful and continuous possession over the suit land for more than the statutory period and as such, he has perfected title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. It is further stated that he and his forefathers were in unauthorised occupation over the suit land. In the settlement operation of the year 1987, it was indicated that the plaintiff was in occupation of the land. His name found place in the remarks column. But the same was cancelled by the Government. He is a landless person. He approached the revenue authorities to record the land in his favour. But the defendants created disturbance in his possession. With this factual scenario, the suit has been filed for declaration of right, title and interest and permanent injunction.

(3.) The defendants were set ex parte. To prove the case, the plaintiff had examined one witness and on his behalf, seven documents had been exhibited. Learned trial court came to hold that no document has been filed or proved by the plaintiff to show from which date and year his possession over the suit land. The plaintiff has failed to prove that he has perfected title by way of adverse possession. The suit was dismissed. Challenging the judgment and decree of the learned trial court, he filed R.F.A. No 16 of 2003 before the learned District Judge, Kalahandi-Nuapada at Bhawanipatna. Learned appellate court came to hold that the initial occupation of the plaintiff over the suit land was permissive. After abolition of estate, all the intermediary interest was vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Held so, the learned lower appellate court dismissed the appeal.