SUBASINI PARIDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal against an affirming judgment. The suit was for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that she is in possession of the suit land for more than 30 years and constructed a house over the same. The suit land has been recorded as Gochar in the final ROR. The entry is wrong. Several houses have been constructed around the suit plot. The State Government have constructed jail building over a plot adjacent to the suit plot. She and her husband are landless and homesteadless persons. While the matter stood thus, the Tahasildar, Aska initiated Encroachment Case No.53/85 against her and passed order of eviction. Against the said order, she filed L.E. Appeal No.33/88 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhanjanagar. The appeal having been dismissed, she filed O.P.L.E. Revision No.47/89 before the Additional District Magistrate, Ganjam, Chhatrapur, which was dismissed. Thereafter she filed another O.P.L.E. Revision No.41/91 before the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, South Berhampur, but it was not entertained. She being the homesteadless person and her annual income did not exceed Rs.4000/-, is entitled for settlement of the land. With this factual scenario, she instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

(3.) The defendant entered contest and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It was pleaded that the suit plot is situated by the side of P.W.D. road to AskaBhanjanagar main road. The suit land had been recorded as Gochar in the record of right published in the year 1949. The kissam is communal. The plaintiff and another person encroached upon a portion of the suit plot, for which, separate encroachment cases had been initiated against her and order of eviction had been passed. The land is objectionable, since it is a communal land. The plaintiff had encroached upon the suit land in the year 1984. Her husband was working as a Peon in the Tahasil Office. She is not a landless and homesteadless person. The annual income of her husband was more than Rs.6400/- and as such the land could not be settled in favour of the plaintiff. When the R.I., Aska reported that the plaintiff had encroached upon the suit land, Encroachment Case No.53/85 was initiated against her. In the encroachment case, the plaintiff had not stated that she was in possession of the land for more than 30 years.