SIVALA MOHAN RAO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the plaintiff.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property originally belonged to Sri Krushna Chandra Gajapathi Narayan Deo, the then Maharaja of Parlakhemundi. He was in possession of the same. He alienated the same to one Bhimo Syamalo on 111963. Thereafter Bhimo Syamalo sold the same to his father on 7.6.1967 by means of a registered sale deed for a valid consideration. The father of the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land till his death. Thereafter, he is in possession of the same to the knowledge of the defendant. The plaintiff and his brother filed mutation case no.38/91 before the Tahasildar, Parlakhemundi, but the same was rejected on the ground that the suit land stood recorded as Anabadi. He was not aware of the settlement proceeding. The entry made by the settlement authorities is wrong. The defendant had recognised the plaintiff as the owner of the suit land and sought permission for holding different Government function on the suit land. But the defendant, who has no semblance of right, title and interest over the suit land, had proposed to construct boundary wall to use the same as play ground. The defendant tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land. Hence he instituted the suit with the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendant is that the vendor had no title over the suit land. The suit land was originally a part of the estate of Parlakhemundi Zamindari recorded in the name of Maharaja of Parlakhemundi. The estate vested in the State after coming into force the Orissa Estate Abolition Act (in short, 'O.E.A. Act'). The suit land has been recorded in plot no.145 and 147 and classified as Patita in the Anabadi Khata. The same had been recorded showing one Ganesh Chandra Mishra, Tulasi Samal, Lingaraj Patra and Banamali Jena as encroachers. Encroachment case no.367/87-88 was initiated and eviction order was passed. Since then, the defendant was in possession of the suit land and using the same for Government functions. The suit land had been transferred to the Sports and Tourism Department for construction of Stadium in Lease Case No.14/90. The plaintiff had no semblance right, title and interest over the suit land.