SUDAM CHARAN GIRI Vs. COLLECTOR, BALASORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs are appellants against a confirming judgment in a suit for correction of major settlement ROR in 'B' schedule property and declaration of 'C' schedule property as 'Bari' instead of 'Smasan'.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is that 'A' schedule property belonged to Madan Mohan Giri, Bholanath Giri and Gopal Chandra Giri, S/o-Late Jati Giri. They were in possession of the land. After death of Madan Giri, Bholanath Giri and Gopal Chandra Giri, their heirs, plaintiffs, inherited the suit property and remain in possession of the same. They used to pay rent and obtained receipts. During the major settlement operation, they applied for correction of the area of the suit land and to record the same in the name of the plaintiffs along with other co-sharers. The Asst. Settlement Officer physically ascertained the factum of possession and assured the plaintiffs that ROR would be prepared in respect of Ac.1.10 dec. of land. But then the final ROR the area has been reduced to Ac.0.87 dec. from Ac.1.10 dec. The reduced area has been amalgamated with 'C' schedule land and recorded as 'Smasan'. Thereafter they sent notice to the defendant for some necessary corrections. On the basis of erroneous entry, the local R.I. threatened the plaintiffs to initiate land encroachment case against them and refused to accept rent. With this factual scenario, they instituted O.S. No. 377 of 199-I in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Balasore seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

(3.) Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendant entered appearance and filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The specific case of the defendant is that the disputed M.S. Plot Nos. 415 and 430 measuring area Ac.0.18 dec. and Ac.0.27 dec. respectively under M.S. Khata No. 169 have been recorded as 'Smasan' under kissam 'Sarbasadharana'. The aforementioned plots correspond to CS Plot No. 268. The reduced area of the plaintiffs' land has not been amalgamated with the disputed plots. Further during the settlement operation, the authorities visited the spot and found that the plaintiffs were in possession of only Ac.0.99 dec. and accordingly the said area was recorded in their name under Khata No. 144.