KIRU KURU SUNANI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff is the appellant against a reversing judgment in a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction.

(2.) Case of the plaintiff is that the then Thekadar of village Sirtol had allotted the suit property in his favour in the year 1938. The plaintiff reclaimed the suit land. He had constructed a house over Schedule-A property. He was in cultivating possession over Schedule-B property. The settlement authority wrongly recorded the suit land in Government Khata. In the remarks column of the ROR, his possession has been mentioned. The Tahasildar, Nuapara, defendant No. 2, initiated encroachment case against him. Thereafter, defendant No. 2 leased out the suit land and granted patta in his favour in Lease Case Nos. 4/71 and 656/77. Defendant No. 2 accepted nazarana. While the matter stood thus, the Collector, Kalahandi, defendant No. 1, initiated suo motu Revision Case Nos. 40/81 and 41/82 and cancelled the lease by order dated 31.5.83 and 24.5.83 respectively. It was pleaded that he was in possession of the suit land for more than thirty years and perfected title by way of adverse possession. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. It is apt to state here that during pendency of the second appeal, the sole plaintiff died, where-after his legal heir has been substituted.

(3.) Defendants filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Case of the defendants is that the suit land was recorded in the name of the State in Abad Jogya Anabadi Khata. The ROR was published in the year 1965 in the name of the Government. The land belongs to Government. The plaintiff was an encroacher. He had no semblance of right, title and interest over the same. The Collector, Kalahandi, defendant No. 1, in Suo Motu Revision Case Nos. 40/81 and 41/82 had cancelled the lease granted by defendant No. 2 on the ground that village-Sirtol had been declared as urban area in the year 1969 and the land could not be leased out to any person for agricultural purpose. Further, a part of the suit land has been reserved for communal use. The same could not be settled as homestead. Defendant No. 2 initiated encroachment case for eviction of the plaintiff. The order of eviction had been passed in due process of law.