SURESWARI BISWASROY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal at the plaintiff's instance assails the affirming judgment of the Additional District Judge, Gajapati, Parlakhemundi in T.A. No.12 of 1998.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that the suit land is her rayati land, not Government land. She purchased the land from one Lalit Madhab Deo and others by means of a registered sale deed dated 15.5.1972 for a valid consideration. Possession was duly delivered to her. She is in possession of the land since the date of purchase. She had raised crops. The suit land is classified as "Rayati Billa" meaning thereby paddy yielding agricultural and cultivable lands as per the sabik ROR. The same is not Anabadi land. In the last settlement operation, she could not take steps, for which, the suit land was classified as Anabadi in the ROR. The ROR was wrongly published, wherein her vendor's name had been reflected in the remarks column. She filed mutation case. But the fate of the case is not known. She is in possession of the land peacefully, continuously and with the hostile animus of the defendant and as such perfected title by way of adverse possession. She has right, title and interest and possession over the suit land. The wrong entry in the ROR created a cloud of suspicion. With this factual scenario, she instituted the T.S. No.24 of 1994 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Parlakhemundi for declaration of title.

(3.) The defendant filed the written statement pleading inter alia that Hal Plot No.1327 appertaining to Hal Khata No.495 of mouza-Jami is a portion of the Sabik Plot No.269, Khata No.8, area Ac.0.74 dec. The same was recorded in favour of Danana Kaneya and Kalamati Surana. At the time of settlement operation, one Lalit Madhaba Deo was in unauthorised possession of the suit land. The settlement authority had recorded the land in Anabadi Khata No.495, since the original owner was not in possession of the land. The plaintiff was not in possession of the land till 1988-89. Village- Jami was notified as urban area of Parlakhemundi Town. The suit land had been recorded in Anabadi Khata in the Hal ROR. In the year 1991, the plaintiff forcibly occupied the suit land. Encroachment case was initiated against her. After receipt of notice, husband of the petitioner appeared and admitted the encroachment. The R.I. submitted the report stating that the encroacher was in unauthorised occupation of the suit land. The plaintiff was the owner of Ac.15.00 dec. of land. She was not a landless person. The encroached land was not settled in her favour. The plaintiff had not perfected title by way of adverse possession. She was evicted in the encroachment case. The standing crops were put to auction by the R.I. When the plaintiff again encroached upon the land, another L.E.C. No.955/91 was initiated against her. Order of eviction was passed. Penalty was imposed on her. Again the plaintiff unauthorised occupied the suit land, for which, L.E.C. Nos.204/92 and 820/93 were initiated against her. Order of eviction was passed. In Mutation Case No.180/92, the husband of the plaintiff appeared on her behalf and produced the sale deed dated 10.6.72. Lalit Madhab Deo, vendor of the plaintiff, was not the owner of the suit land. Mutation Case was rejected. No appeal was preferred against the said order.