PRAVAKAR SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs are the appellants against an affirming judgment.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule land originally belonged to Ratha Prusty and Bharat Prusty. In an amicable partition, the property fell to the share of Bharat Prusty. He alienated an area of Ac.0.13 dec. appertaining to sabik plot nos.870 and 871 in favour of the plaintiffs by means of a sale deed. Delivery of possession was made to the plaintiffs. Thereafter they had constructed their house over the same and residing with their family members since 1980. The suit land was wrongly recorded in the name of the State in the hal settlement. While the matter stood thus, Encroachment Case No.11 of 1986-87 was initiated against their father. The Tahasildar, Patna, defendant no.2, initiated Encroachment Case No.2/2000-2001 against the plaintiff no.1 in respect of the suit land. Order of eviction was passed on 8.12.2000. Plaintiff no.1 preferred Encroachment Appeal No.1 of 2001 before the Sub-Collector, Keonjhar, which was dismissed on 30.3.2001. He challenged the same in Encroachment Revision No.6 of 2001 before the Additional District Magistrate, Keonjhar. The revisional authority set aside the order and remanded the case for fresh disposal in accordance with law. It is further pleaded that the suit schedule land is a raiyati land of Bharat Prusty and others. The same was wrongly recorded in the name of State. For the self-same land, Encroachment Case No.11 of 1986-87 was initiated against their father. Initiation of encroachment case is bad in law. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit for declaration that the order dated 19.8.2002 passed by the defendant no.2 in Encroachment Case No.2 of 2000-2001 is illegal and permanent injunction.

(3.) The defendant no.1 filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendant no.1 is that the suit land has been recorded in the name of the State. The father of the plaintiffs could not establish that the suit land is a raiyati land in the Encroachment Case No.11 of 1986-87. The defendant no.2 filed written statement taking the similar stand to that of defendant no.1.