STATE OF ORISSA Vs. LINGARAJ PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS are the appellants against a reversing decision.

(2.) PLAINTIFF -respondents filed the suit for declaration that they are the tenants/occupancy raiyats over the disputed property which consists of Ac. 20.00 of land appertaining to plot No. 4705, Khata No. 1074 of 1974 Settlement corresponding to Plot No. 1725, Khata No. 918/21 of the 1931 Settlement, in village Gadakana, which is now part of Bhubaneswar municipal area. According to the plaintiffs, the disputed property belonged to Choudhury Keshab Chandra Mohapatra who was the proprietor and raiyat over the same. In 1945, the latter entered into a contract with the plaintiffs and inducted them as tenants and delivered possession and in token thereof executed a lease deed in the year 1948. On and from the date of induction, the plaintiffs demarcated the same and continued to possess the disputed land on payment of rent in the office of the landlord. It is claimed that though the land was recorded jointly in the names of the two plaintiffs, plaintiff No. 1 carried on agricultural operation over Ac. 1 5.00 of land and plaintiff No. 2 cultivated Ac 5.00 of land and the landlord was aware of the said arrangement. It is claimed that since the original tenancy was recorded in the two names, rent was continued to be paid in joint names. It is stated that plaintiff No. 1 has got 3/4th interest and plaintiff No. 2 has 1 /4th interest over the property. After expiry of twelve years from 1945, plaintiffs became the settled raiyats of the village with right of occupancy over the disputed property. After abolition of the estate, rent was paid in the names of the plaintiffs directly to the Government. It is claimed that names of the plaintiffs were mutated in the Jamabandi Register vide Misc. Case No. 13/6 of 1962/63, dated 20.3.1962 by the Tahsildar, Cuttack, and the Tenants Ledger was corrected. Subsequently, village Gadakana was transferred to Puri district from 1972 - 73 and Settlement operations were in progress during that time. Due to transitory period of transfer of village from Cuttack to Puri district, the records of Tahsildar could not be properly made available to the Settlement authorities and as such the status of the plaintiffs was not properly recorded, but the plaintiffs were shown to the in possession, though the Khata was wrongly recorded in the name of Government. However, Record -of -Rights published in the year 1974 in respect of the disputed village and other villages were found to be defective and Government cancelled the Settlement and started fresh Settlement proceedings which were in operation at the time of filing of the suit. In view of the wrong noting, the Government authorities refused to accept rent during 1983 -84 for which the plaintiffs moved the Tahsildar, but to no avail and the Settlement authorities were trying to mechanically record the Khata in the name of the State Government while noting possession of the plaintiffs. On the aforesaid allegations, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of their tenancy right.

(3.) THE trial Court dismissed the suit on the following findings :