STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SAIBANI PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State of Orissa is the appellant against a confirming judgment of the learned District Judge, Keonjhar.

(2.) Nishakar Pradhan, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, instituted T.S No.27 of 1984 in the court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Keonjhar for declaration of right, title and interest and for a declaration that the order passed by the Tahasildar, Telkoi in Encroachment Case No.1 of 1983-84 is not binding. The case of the plaintiff is that suit land admeasuring A1.48 dec. appertaining to Sabik Khata No.95 of village-Nayakot was the jungle land. The said land was cleared by the father of the plaintiff about 50 years back. The father of the plaintiff was in possession of the land. After death of his father, the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land. It is stated that he was in possession over the suit land continuously, peaceful and openly without any interruption for more than the statutory period and as such, perfected title by adverse possession. The Tahasildar initiated Encroachment Case No.1 of 1983-84 basing on the report of the R.I. and disturbed peaceful possession of the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendants filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It is stated that the father of the plaintiff converted the jungle land into the cultivable land. The plaintiff in connivance with the settlement authority recorded his name in the column meant for note of possession in the ROR. A proceeding under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act (hereinafter referred to as "the OPLE Act") was initiated against him. Notice was issued to him by the Tahasildar. He did not appear. The case was decided ex parte. He was directed to vacate the suit land. It is further stated that the suit land appertaining to Khata No. 84, Hal Plot No.281 has been recorded as Godandi. The rest plots as jungle Kissam. His name has been recorded in the column meant for note of possession. It is further stated that since he was in unauthorized occupation, encroachment case was initiated and the order of eviction passed against him. Further, he had not acquired any title by way of adverse possession. The suit is not maintainable in view of Section 16 of the OPLE Act.