SIDHESWAR PANIGRAHI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff no.1 is the appellant against a confirming judgment in a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, in the alternative recovery of possession and permanent injunction.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs was that their grandfather, Harihar Panigrahi, was appointed as Gountia of the suit village by the ex-ruler. Gountia patta was issued in his favour in respect of the suit village and land. He excavated the tank and used the water of the tank for irrigation of his land. He was doing pisciculture. After death of Harihar, his son, Iswar, father of the plaintiffs, became the Gountia of the suit village. He made development of the tank and spent huge amount by incurring loan. He was in possession till his death. The plaintiffs are in possession of the tank from the time of their grandfather for more than 60 years without any intervention and as such perfected title by way of adverse possession. The defendants have no semblance of right, title and interest over the same. In the 4th settlement, the suit land has been wrongly recorded in the name of the State under Rakhit Anabadi. During the current settlement, they filed Objection Case Nos.936/1993, 43/84 to record the suit land in their names. The A.S.O. erroneously rejected the said claim. Thereafter, the Tahasildar, Sonepur initiated Encroachment Case No.188 of 1995. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

(3.) The defendant no.1 filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The specific case of the defendant no.1 was that the suit land is a Government land. It was recorded in the name of Government of Orissa under Rakhit Khata. After abolition of Bhogra system, the tank vested in the State. Iswar, father of the plaintiffs, had surrendered the Bhogra land by filing petition. The same was accepted by the authorized officer. In the Bhogra proceeding, an area of Ac.12.942 dec. was settled by the Collector in favour of Iswar excluding the tank. Iswar did not prefer any appeal against the said order. Excavation of tank has been denied by the defendants. The State Government being the owner of the tank, the same has been recorded in the name of the State Government in the 4th settlement. The plaintiff no.2 forcibly encroached upon an area Ac.1.800 dec. out of plot no.118, for which, encroachment case was initiated against him. He was evicted from the encroached area. The plaintiffs are not in possession of the tank. The plaintiffs have not been challenged the recording of the tank in the name of the State Government within the prescribed period of limitation and as such the suit is barred by limitation. Though the defendant no.2 filed a written statement, but subsequently he was set exparte.