BISIKESAN NAIK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal against confirming judgment.

(2.) The suit was for declaration of title over schedule 'A' land, correction of ROR and for a direction to the defendants to settle the schedule 'A' land in his favour. The case of the plaintiff was that he is a landless scheduled tribe. His residential house stands over a piece of Government land described as schedule 'A' for more than forty-six years. In the current settlement, the land had been settled in the name of the Government. The kissam of land is Abadajogya Anabadi. In the remarks column, the note of possession of his father had been reflected. His father was in peaceful possession of the land. After his death, he is in possession of the land peacefully, continuously and with the hostile animus of the defendants. While matter stood thus, Encroachment Case Nos.719 of 1989, 355 of 1987 and 357 of 1987 had been initiated against him. He being an encroacher appeared in the cases, paid dues and obtained receipts. He had not been evicted from the suit land. In an encroachment case, the order of eviction was passed. He filed Encroachment Appeal Nos.11 and 12 of 1987 before the Sub-Collector, Baripada. The appeals were allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Tahasildar, Baripada, defendant no.2, to enquire into the same and settle the land in his favour. No order has been passed till yet. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

(3.) The defendants filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants was that the suit is barred under Sec.16 of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act ("OPLE Act") . The suit land is a Government land. The same has been recorded in the name of the Government in the ROR. The plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the same. Encroachment Case Nos.719/87, 193/87, 355/87 and 357/87 had been initiated against the plaintiff for unauthorised occupation of the suit land. The plaintiff was in unauthorised occupation of the suit land since 1984. The land is objectionable and cannot be settled.