FAKIR SENAPATI Vs. TAHSILDAR SADAR CUTTACK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff has carried this second appeal against the affirming judgment and decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Cuttack in a suit for permanent injunction against defendants 1 to 3 restraining them from evicting him from the disputed property and prohibiting defendants from recovering the final penalty assessed on him under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, he applied to the Tahsildar of Cuttack for obtaining lease of the three acres of land from out of plot no. 2210 under Anabadi Khata No. 408 in Tauzi No. 4943 and the lease was for agricultural purposes. Plaintiff's application was registered as lease case No. 328 of 1961-62 and on 20th of December, 1961, the Tahsildar directed grant of lease in favour of the plaintiff on payment of Salami of Rs. 300/- and annual rent of Rs.19.44. In January, 1962, the Naib Tahsildar issued appropriate rent receipts. The Tahsildar Amin demarcated the leasehold and put the plaintiff in possession. The succeeding Tahsildar was not prepared to accept the lease and issued a General Notice on 21-5-1963, to the effect that no land in the mauza in question had been leased out. The plaintiff thereupon appeared before him and claimed that he was lessee of the disputed property. Encroachment Case No. 14 of 1963 was initiated against the plaintiff on the footing that plaintiff was a trespasser and had no right to possess the land. Plaintiff applied for the certified copy of the order granting lease to him but the same was not issued. The Tahsildar passed an order of eviction of the plaintiff and assessed penalty as also rent. As plaintiff failed to obtain any relief in the appeal filed by him against the said order, he ultimately came with the present suit.

(3.) Defendants have taken the stand that no application had been made by the plaintiff for grant of a lease and the same had not been registered as Lease Case No. 328 of 1961-62 and no order granting lease had ever been passed by the Tahsildar. It is also maintained that no Salami had been accepted from the plaintiff and no Patta had been issued. It is denied that any Amin had been deputed under directions of the Tahsildar to demarcate the leasehold and deliver possession thereof to the plaintiff. Payment of rent by the plaintiff and issue of a receipt to him have also been denied. It has been alleged that the plaintiff in connivance with some of the assistants of the Tahsil Office has manipulated to obtain a rent receipt in a fraudulent manner. In the circumstances, the initiation of the proceeding for his eviction was justified and the several orders which are impugned are not open to attack.