PRAHALLAD BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the decision dated 27.3.1990 passed by the learned lower appellate court in T.A. No.75/227 of 1986/87 reversing the decision dated 12.11.1986 of the learned trial court in O.S. No.136/85-I.

(2.) Plaintiff-Appellant instituted the suit for declaration that the order dated 5.4.1984 passed by the Tahasildar, Bhadrak, defendant no.2, in Case No.1 of 1976 under Sec.5(i) of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act (in short, 'O.E.A. Act') is void and without jurisdiction. It was pleaded that the suit land originally belonged to ex-landlord, Habibur Raheman. The ex-landlord executed an unregistered lease deed in his favour on 13.6.1943 and delivered possession. He paid rent to the ex-landlord. He reclaimed the suit land, silted up tanks, grew paddy and other vegetables over the vacate land. He had also constructed a farm house. He was in possession of the land for 40 years and acquired occupancy right. After vesting, rent was paid to the State. While the matter stood thus, the consolidation operation in the area, where the land falls, started in the year 1979. The consolidation authorities granted ROR in his favour. At the instance of some persons, defendant no.2 initiated Case No.1 of 1976 under Sec.5(i) of the O.E.A. Act against him. Case was not transferred to the consolidation authorities. In the said proceeding, legal heirs of the landlord were not parties. Without affording any opportunity to him, the defendant no.2 set aside the lease and declared that right, title and interest of the plaintiff stood extinguished. The said order is void, inoperative and does not affect his title.

(3.) The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiff stating that the nature of the land is communal. The suit land belonged to Mattowali Malna Md. Habibur Raheman. The same was recorded under Anabadi khata. The status of the land was Bajyapti Mandhya-Satwadhikari. The land vested in the State free from all encumbrances after coming into force of the O.E.A. Act. The plaintiff appeared in Case No.1 of 1976. He failed to produce hatpatta. He had not adduced any evidence. The lease deed was not in existence. The alleged lease deed was a fabricated one. The rent receipts granted by the ex-landlord were fabricated. The defendant no.2 was the competent authority to initiate proceeding. In the said case, he visited the spot and found that there are two tanks over the suit schedule land. The villagers are using the tank. The villagers stated that they have constructed a house as village library. He further found that the plaintiff was not in physical possession. The plaintiff had not acquired any right, title and interest.