PURNA CHANDRA NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal against an affirming judgment.

(2.) An area of 25 acres of land appertaining to sabik khata no.298, sabik plot no.1654 of mouza Konarak is the subject matter of dispute. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit land originally belonged to ex-intermediaries, namely, Birabhadra Sahu, Banchaniddhi Sahu, Bansidhar Sahu, Loknath Sahu, Indrani Sahu, Satyabati Sahu, Padma Charan Sahu and Dibyasingh Sahu respectively. The ex-intermediaries executed an unregistered lease deed on 22.2.1942 in favour of Nalu Naik, father of the plaintiff for a premium of Rs.500/-, and received full consideration. Possession was delivered to him. The annual rent of Rs.25/- was accepted. Thereafter his father had planted casurina and cashew-nut trees and enjoyed the usufructs. In the year 1953, the estate vested in the State. The ex-landlord submitted 'Jamanbandi' in his father's name whereafter the tenant's ledger was prepared. His father paid rent and cess from the year 1953 to 1961-62 and obtained receipt on 30.3.1962. His father died in the year 1976 leaving behind him. Thereafter he is in possession of the suit land. He had also planted casurina trees. When he offered rent to the local R.I., it was not accepted. He enquired into the same and came to know that during the preparation of the draft R.O.R., the name of the plaintiff had not been mentioned. Thereafter the local Range Officer threatened to dispossess him. With this factual scenario, he instituted Title Suit No.147 of 1987 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Puri for declaration of occupancy raiyat and permanent injunction.

(3.) The defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendant is that the suit land belongs to the State. In the settlement operation, the land was recorded as Abada Jogya Anabadi. The report of the Amin reveals that the suit land was recorded under Rakhit khata as per the settlement record. The draft R.O.R. had been prepared in the name of the State. Neither the plaintiff, nor his father objected to the recording of the name of the defendant in the preliminary stages of settlement operation which started in the year 1962.