STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER Vs. JALANDHARA PRADHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants are the appellants against a reversing judgment.

(2.) Respondent as plaintiff instituted T.S. No.11 of 1990 in the court of the learned Addl. Subordinate Judge, Phulbani for declaration of title, settlement of the land in his favour, permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs impleading the appellants as defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit land originally belongs to one Chaitanya Panda. He had constructed a thatched house and was running a hotel. Chaitanya sold the property to one Surekhamani in the year 1958 by means of an unregistered sale deed. While the matter stood thus, Surekhamani sold the property to one Dasura Pradhan, father of the plaintiff, in the year 1972 by means of an unregistered sale deed for a consideration of Rs.7000.00. The father of the plaintiff constructed a pucca building over the same. In an amicable partition, the property fell to the share of the plaintiff. The house was assessed by the N.A.C., Phulbani. He and his father was absent during settlement operation. The suit land was recorded under Anabadi Khata in the name of the State Government. It is further pleaded that the Tahasildar, Kandhamal, defendant No. 2, initiated Encroachment Case No.86 of 1979 against him and passed order of eviction on 210.1986. The R.I submitted a false report to the defendant No. 2 that he had been evicted from the suit land on 18.11987. Thus initiation of case is illegal and without jurisdiction. After issuing notice under Sec. 80 Civil Procedure Code to the defendants, he instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

(3.) Defendants filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The specific case of the defendants is that the suit land is a Government land. The same was not in possession of any person at the time of settlement operation. The land was recorded under Anabadi Khata. When the plaintiff raised pucca construction over the suit land, Encroachment Case No.86 of 1979 was initiated against him. Since plaintiff was not eligible for settlement of the land, the order of eviction was passed after observing the legal formalities.