PURI MUNICIPALITY Vs. DEBIDUTTA RAMANIRANJAN PATNAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT is the appellant challenging the appellate Judgment affirming the Judgment passed by the Munsif Puri in O.S. No. 40 Decided on 27th February, 1997. of 1973 -I, a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction.

(2.) THE respondent as plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit putting - forth his case that Ac.0.025 1/2 decimals of land under Provincial Settlement Plot No. 79, Khata No. 36 corresponding to Current Settlement Plot No. 408 of mauza Dandimal Sahi, Puri Town, originally belonged to the father of one Raghunath Das, who was the recorded owner. The plaintiff purchased the same from him by a registered sale deed dated 18.11.1972 and took over possession. The defendant, namely the Puri Municipality, has no manner of right, interest or possession over the same, but had issued a notice No. 682 dated 8.2.1973 in Encroachment Case No. 1 of 1973 to plaintiff's father to demolish a pucca wall said to have constructed encroaching an area of Ac.0.021 1/2 decimals under the aforesaid khata and plot. It was also mentioned in the said notice that drastic action would be taken on failure of compliance of the notice. Plaintiff's father complained against this before the Executive Officer, Puri Municipality. Thereafter another notice No. 683 dated 8.2.1973 was issued in U.C. Case No. 2 of 1973, which was served on plaintiff's father calling upon him to demolish the wall. There was a proceeding under Section 273 -A of the Orissa Municipal Act against plaintiff's father. Apprehending that Municipality might take the law into its own hands and trespass over the purchased land and demolish the wall falsely purporting to act under the provisions of the Orissa Municipal Act, the suit was filed claiming that the plaintiff had not violated the provisions enjoined under Sections 263 and 264 of the Orissa Municipal Act.

(3.) THE learned Munsif on the basis of the pleadings framed 5 issues and came to hold that notice under Section 349(1) of the Orissa Municipal Act is not a pre -condition to file the suit of the present nature. He has further reached a finding that the plaintiff has got right, title and interest as well as possession over the suit property and the question of acquisition of title over the suit property by adverse possession by the defendant does not arise. It was also held by the Court of first instance that the suit is not barred by limitation and the plaintiff being the owner in exclusive possession and having not encroached upon any land of the Municipality and not constructed any wall unauthorisedly the notice issued to him to demolish the wall is bad in law and does not come within the mischief of Section 279 -A of the Orissa Municipal Act. A finding was also returned that the plaintiff had not violated any of the provisions of Sections 263 and 264 of the Orissa Municipal Act. Answering all the Issues in favour of the plaintiff, the trial Court decreed the suit.