SATADAL MANDAL Vs. COLLECTOR, BHADRAK AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The dispute pertains to area admeasuring Ac.10.10 decimals appertaining to M.S. Khata No.809, Plot Nos.2645, 2646 and 2647 of mouza-Radhanathpur, P.S.-Basudevpur in the district of Bhadrak. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit land is a part and parcel of the unserved area of the sea-shore. Kisam of the suit land was Anabadi. His great grandfather, Kartika Chandra Mandal, had reclaimed the land with the consent of Radhakanta Pardhi, exlandlord, on 2.3.1945. The ex-landlord and one Muktikanta Pardhi had executed an Amalanama Patra in favour of his great grandfather. The ex-landlord had not made any application to the Collector for ejectment of his great grandfather within four years from the date of reclamation, which implies that the ex-landlord had given his consent for reclamation of the suit land. His great grandfather had acquired occupancy right over the same. Prior to execution of Amalanama Patra, his great grandfather was in possession of the suit land as a tenant for more than ten years. An agricultural lease was granted to him since 13.5.1937 by a Kabuliat. The ex-landlord had granted hat patta to his great grandfather on 26.12.1949. The name of his great grandfather had been recorded in the zamabandi register. The further case of the plaintiff is that Kartika Chandra Mandal died leaving behind his three sons, namely, Gora Chand, Rai Chand and Shyam Chand. They are all dead. Barendra is the son of Rai Chand, who died in June, 2001. The plaintiff being the successor of Barendra is in possession of the suit land. There was an oral partition between the sons of Kartika Chandra Mandal. Gora Chand and Shyam Chand alienated their 1/3rd interest each to Barendra and as such he became the absolute owner of the suit land. The State of Orissa had also received rent from the plaintiff. The major settlement record of right was not prepared correctly. The suit land was recorded as Abadajogya Anabadi in the name of the Government of Orissa. Basing on the recording in the M.S.R.O.R., the defendants had threatened to dispossess him from the suit land. With this factual scenario, the suit was filed seeking the reliefs as mentioned supra.

(3.) Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Apart from challenging the maintainability of the suit, the defendants took the plea that the description of the suit land is vague and indefinite. The documents said to have been granted by the ex-landlord are false and fabricated. The suit land has been rightly recorded in the name of Government both in the C.S. and M.S.R.O.R. The ex-landlord had no right to lease out the same in favour of any person. The specific case of the defendants is that the suit land is the sea-shore land and as such it has got public utility and prohibitory in nature. The plaintiff has not acquired any tenancy or occupancy right over the land in question.