CHANDRASEKHAR SETHY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.9.1996 and 10.10.1996 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Keonjhar in T.A No.48 of 1998 reversing the judgment and decree dated 10.10.1988 and 15.10.1988 respectively passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Anandapur in T.S. No.1 of 1987-I.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that his house was washed away in the flood of river Baitarani in the year 1950. Thereafter, he occupied the suit land. He constructed a thatched house over it. He is in peaceful and continuous possession over the suit land since 1950. His possession has been recorded in the ROR. He used to pay holding tax to the N.A.C. While the matter stood thus, the Tahasildar, Anandpur, defendant no.2, passed an order of eviction against him in the year 1983 in an encroachment case. He preferred appeal against the said order before the A.D.M., Keonjhar. The appellate authority set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the S.D.O., Anandapur. The S.D.O., Anandapur by order dated 6.8.1986 in Encroachment Case No.35 of 1986 held that the plaintiff has acquired title over the suit land and then directed him to deposit Rs.910/- towards rent, cess etc. but the same had not been accepted by defendant no.2. With this factual scenario, he filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and confirmation of possession over the suit land.

(3.) Pursuant to issuance of summons, defendant nos.1 and 2 entered appearance and filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants is that the suit land is a piece of Government land. The same has been recorded as Abada Jogya Anabadi in the current settlement with the note of possession of the plaintiff. Thereafter, Encroachment Case No.31 of 1983 was initiated against him by defendant no.2. The order of eviction was passed on 3.12.1983. Since the plaintiff did not vacant the land, the R.I., Anandapur was authorised to take physical possession over the suit land. According to the defendants, the plaintiff is not in possession over the suit land for more than the statutory period.