Afr Gayatri Panigrahi & Anr vs State Of Odisha & Others on 5 April, 2025

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Afr Gayatri Panigrahi & Anr vs State Of Odisha & Others on 5 April, 2025

The plaintiffs are the appellants against a confirming judgment. The suit of the plaintiffs for declaration of their right, title, interest and possession over the suit land, confirmation of possession along with Page 1 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13 permanent injunction was dismissed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective status before the Trial Court.

3. The Plaintiffs‟ case in a nutshell is that the suit land corresponds to Hal Khata No.843, Plot Nos.1615, 1616 and 1617, in all measuring Ac 0.470 dec. which corresponds to Sabik Khata No.100/3 and 101/3 in Mouza- Goudagam (Inam land). One Durga Prasad Panda was in possession of land measuring Ac.2.43 dec. in Sabik Khata No. 175 of 37, which was settled in his name as per order passed in C.P. No.506/1970. Out of the said land, Ac.0.50 dec of land in Sabik Khata No. 101/3 is part of the suit land. After death of Durga Prasad Panda, his successors-in- interest sold the land to different purchasers, who, in turn transferred the land to others including the plaintiffs. As such, one Jagadish Panigrahi sold Ac. 0.08 dec. in favour of plaintiff No.1 vide RSD No.335 of 1990 appertaining to Sabik Plot No.101/3. The plaintiffs claim to be in forcible Page 2 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13 possession of Ac. 0.06 decimals of land. As such, rest of the land measuring Ac 0.36 dec. has been recorded in the name of Srinibash Sahoo in rayati status.

4. Similarly, in so far as Sabik Khata No. 100/3 is concerned, Subodh Panigrahi and Parsuram Behera having purchased the land from Bansidhar Panda, sold Ac. 0.10 dec. to plaintiff no.2. The remaining Ac. 0.26 dec. of land belonging to Bansidhar Panda was forcibly possessed by plaintiff No.2.

5. Thus, in so far as the Sabik Plot No.101/3 is concerned, the plaintiffs, being husband and wife, claimed title over Ac.0.08 dec on the strength of RSD dated 03.12.1990 and by way of adverse possession in respect of Ac. 0.06 dec. In so far as the Sabik Plot No.100/3 is concerned, the plaintiffs claim title over Ac 0.10 dec. on the strength of RSD dated 13.02.1990 and 20.07.1993 and over 0.26 dec by way of adverse possession.

6. The plaintiffs‟ further case is that they have constructed a mill house as well as a residential house over Page 3 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13 the land belonging to Srinibas Sahoo which they have encroached. During settlement operation, as the plaintiffs could not produce the document in CP No.506 of 1970 the Inam land was wrongly recorded in the name of State Government in Khata No.843 as "Abadajogya Anabadi". Taking advantage of such wrong recording, the Tahasildar, Digapahandi initiated proceedings under the provisions of the OPLE Act. Hence, the suit.

7. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 being State functionaries, contested the suit and filed joint written statement. Their case is that the suit lands are government lands recorded as "Abadajogya Anabadi" in the Hal settlement. In view of conclusion of settlement operations, the claim regarding Inam status of the suit land is inconsequential. The plaintiffs encroached upon the Government land but their possession was never continuous. As such, the Tahasildar, Digapahandi was authorized to take action against such illegal encroachment.

Page 4 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13

8. Basing on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues for determination:

" (i) Whether the suit is maintainable?

(ii) Whether the plaintiffs have got cause of action to bring the suit?

(iii) Whether the disputed site bearing hall (sic) khata No.843, plot No.1615 of an area of Ac 0.260 dec, plot No.1616 of an area Ac 0.110 dec and plot No.1617 of an area Ac 0.100 dec of mouza Goudagam corresponding to sabik survey No.100/3 and 101/3 of mouza Goudagam has been settled in the name of Durga Prasad Panda after extinguishment of its inamdar status vide C.P. No.506/1970 having Khata No.175/37 ?

(iv) Whether the subsequent alienation effected by Radhanath Panda and his two minor sons namely, Mohini Mohan Panda and Anamadheya Panda in favour of Srinibash Sahoo in respect of land of Ac 0.50 cent in survey No.101/3 vide regd sale deed no.3815 of 1970 dated 31.07.1970 and alienation by Srinivas Sahoo in favour of Balakrushna Behera in respect of land of Ac 0.08 cent out of Ac 0.50 cent vide regd sale deed no 746/1978 dated 17.03.1978, alienation by the vendor Balakrushna Behera in favour of the vendee Jagdish panigrahi in the regd sale deed No.4623 of 1980 on 03.11.1980 in respect of land of Ac 0.80 cent, alienation by Jagdish Panigrahi in favour of the vendee Gayatri Panigrahi in respect of land of Ac 0.80 cent vide regd sale deed No.335/1990, alienation of land of Ac 0.03.9/16 cent by Bansidhar Panda in favour of Subodha Panigrahi vide regd in respect of survey no. 100/3, and alienation of land of an area of Ac 0.10 cents in respect of survey no 100/03 by Subodha Panigrahi and Parsuram Behera in favour of Madhab Panigrahi (Plaintiff no. 2) vide regd sale deed no 334/1990 on 13.02.90 and regd sale deed no 2979/93 dtd. 20.07.93 are valid and lawful ?

(v) Whether ROR prepared by the Government with respect to the disputed site by attributing it to the status of "Abadajogya Anabadi" is correct or not ?

(vi) Whether the plaintiff have been continuing in possession over the disputed site for more than 30 Page 5 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13 years and thereby perfected their title over the same by way of an adverse possession ?

(vii) Whether notice issued by defendant no. 3 the then Tahasildar, Digapahandi u/s. 4, 6, 7 of OPLE Act, 1972 for eviction of the plaintiff from the suit land is correct or not ?

(viii) To what other relief/reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to ?

9. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the claim of title of Durga Prasad Panda over the suit land could not be established by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the subsequent sales made by him and his successors have no validity. The trial Court negatived the plea of adverse possession by holding that the plaintiffs‟ entry over the suit land was in the capacity of legitimate owner and in any case having entered into the suit land in 1990, the required period of 30 years of continuance and uninterrupted possession had not elapsed. The suit was thus dismissed.

10. The First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court by holding that Ext-1 does not whisper anything about the settlement of Sabik Khata No.101/3 in favour of Durga Prasad Panda in rayati status. Further Ext-12 being the „Yadast‟ discloses that during field Page 6 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13 inquiry no one was present for which the land was recorded as "Abadajogya Anabadi". The First Appellate Court, therefore, held that when the original source of title is not established in favour of Durga Prasad Panda, the claim of the plaintiffs fails automatically. It was further held that the ROR was published on 30.04.1998 but the suit was filed on 23.12.2013. The Civil Court has jurisdiction regarding correction of entries in the ROR upto three years. Therefore, the suit having been filed after publication cannot be entertained. On the plea of adverse possession the First Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs could not establish hostile animus against the true owner namely, the Government. The appeal was thus dismissed.

11. Being further aggrieved, the plaintiffs have preferred this Second Appeal, which was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

(1) Whether the Courts below by misconstruing Ext.1, which is admissible in law have erroneously recorded the finding that the suit land has not been settled in favour of Durga Prasad Panda, the vendor's vendor of the Plaintiffs ?

Page 7 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13 (2) Whether upon proper construction of that Ext. 1, the Courts below ought to have held the same to be the source of title which has ultimately come to rest on the Plaintiffs by virtue of valid and legal transactions?

12. Heard Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for the defendant-appellants and Mr. A.R. Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate for the plaintiff- respondents. Notice on defendant-respondent Nos. 4 to 13 having been dispensed with by order dated 16.04.2021, there was no appearance from their side, though, respondent Nos.7 and 11 having died during pendency of the appeal, they were substituted by their LRs.

13. Mr. Mishra would argue that both the Courts below committed gross error of law in not placing importance on Ext-1, which clearly shows that the land in question was settled in favour of Durga Prasad Panda. The document having been obtained under the RTI Act is admissible as per the settled position of law. Mr. Mishra further submits, referring to the ROR marked Ext-1 standing in the name of Srinibash Sahoo that when the State accepted the antecedent title of said Srinibash Sahoo Page 8 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13 and recorded his name under rayati status, how could it not accept the claim of the plaintiffs with regard to the portion of the land under the same Khata purchased by them. Mr. Mishra further argued that only because the plaintiffs were absent during field inquiry, the land could not have been recorded as "Abadajogya Anabadi" even though there is a residential house and mill standing over the same. On the question of not filing the suit within three years from the date of publication of the ROR, Mr. Mishra would argue that the same cannot extinguish the title of the plaintiff under any circumstances. It was also argued that as per the settled position of law, decision of the Revenue Officer in a proceeding under OPLE Act cannot operate as res-judicata nor act as bar to decide the question of title in a suit subsequently filed. On the question of adverse possession, Mr. Mishra would argue that both the Courts below proceeded on the misconceived notion that the plaintiffs had claimed adverse possession against the State, though in fact they were claiming adverse possession against their respective vendors, who were impleaded as defendants in Page 9 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13 the suit. Mr. Mishra concludes his argument by submitting that both the Courts below have proceeded on the erroneous premises that the suit land corresponds only to Sabik plot No.101/3 ignoring the fact that the plaintiffs also claim adverse possession over a portion of Sabik Plot No.100/3.

14. Per contra, Mr. A.R. Dash, would argue that the plaintiffs completely failed to prove that the Inam land was converted to Rayati status in the so-called Certificate Proceeding No.506/1970. Neither the order passed in the said case was produced nor was the date on which the order passed mentioned. Except Ext-1 and 12 there is no other document to substantiate the claim of the plaintiff regarding flow of title when the plaintiffs themselves claimed to have entered upon the suit land on the basis of sale deed. The same cannot be transformed into a claim of adverse possession. The plaintiffs could not prove continuous possession for more than 30 years by taking the plea of tacking as they could not prove the antecedent title. Mr. Dash finally submits that Inam land, by its very nature is incapable of acquisition.

Page 10 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13

15. It would be apt to consider the admissibility of the certified copy of the Sabik ROR pertaining to Khata No.175/37 on which the plaintiff relies heavily. According to the defendant, the original ROR not having been produced and the document in question having been obtained through the RTI Act, is not admissible. There is no dispute that the document admitted into evidence as Ext.1 is the information obtained from the Public Information Officer, Tahasil Office, Digapahandi purporting to be the Xerox copy of ROR of Mouza- Goudagaon vide Khata No.175/37, which was obtained from the Revenue Inspector, Nuapada. The document was furnished to the plaintiff No.2 under a forwarding letter dated 25.10.2011 and the documents itself bears the seal and signature of the Public Information Officer. Whether a document obtained under RTI Act is admissible or not has been examined by different High Courts. In the case of Munsi Ram and others vs. Balkar Singh and Others 1 it was held that such a document is a public document and would require no further 1 (2016) 182 PLR 526 Page 11 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13 corroboration as per Section 77 of the Evidence Act. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Narayan Singh vs. Kallaram @ Kalluram Khushwaha2 held that certified copy of the document obtained under RTI Act is covered Section 65 of the Evidence Act and there is no need to compare the same with the originals.

16. After going through the cited judgments, this Court finds itself in respectful agreement with the proposition laid down therein and therefore, holds that the document marked Ext.1 is legally admissible.

17. Another preliminary objection to the plaintiffs‟ suit was raised by the State defendant to the effect that action having been taken against the plaintiffs under the OPLE Act, the suit would be hit by the principles of res judicata as also barred under Section 16 of the OPLE Act. This question is no longer res integra having already been decided by this Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. 2 2015 (2) MPLJ Page 12 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13 Bhanu Mali (Dead) Nurpa Bewa and others 3, wherein the substantial question was as follows:

"Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to disturb the finding arrived at which is an order of eviction under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act on the facts and circumstances of the case?"

This Court in the cited case considered the provision under Section 16 of the Act and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case reported in Govt. of Andhra Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao and Anr.4 and Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. M/s. India Automobiles & Co. & others5 to hold that the decision of the Revenue Officer in the proceeding under the OPLE Act can neither operate as res judicata nor Section-16 thereof can stand as a bar relating to the question of title in a subsequent Civil Suit.

18. From the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the parties it is apparent that the plaintiffs base their claim of title on the basis of the sale deeds marked Exts. 5, 6 & 7. Additionally, they claim to have perfected their title by 3 (1996) SCC Online Ori 23 4 AIR 1982 SC 1081 5 AIR 1991 SC 884 Page 13 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13 adverse possession in respect of some other lands. Ext.5 is a sale deed executed by one Jagdish Panigrahi in favour of Gayatri Panigrahi (plaintiff No.1) on 13.02.1990 transferring Ac. 0.08 dec. of land on consideration of Rs.25,000/-. Similarly Ext.6 is a sale deed executed by one Subodh Panigrahi on 13.02.1990 in favour of Madhab Panigrahi (plaintiff No.2) transferring Ac. 0.03 3/16 dec. of land for consideration. Ext.7 is a sale deed executed by one Parsuram Behera on 19.04.1993 in favour of Madhab Panigrahi (plaintiff No.2) transferring Ac. 0.06 6/16 dec. of land for consideration. Thus, the plaintiffs claim title over Ac. 0.08 dec. by virtue of Ext.5 and Ac. 0.10 dec. by virtue of Exts.6 & 7 taken together. The State has questioned the antecedent title, inasmuch as according to it, the plaintiffs‟ vendor and in turn his vendor, never possessed any alienable title in respect of the suit properties. In this context, the plaintiffs have heavily relied upon the relevant extract of the Sabik ROR (marked Ext.1) in respect of Sabik Khata No. 175/37. The plaintiffs claim that the land under said Khata was Iman land in total measuring 2.43 dec., Page 14 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13 which was settled in the name of Durga Prasad Panda as per Certificate Proceeding No. 506 of 1970. The suit land corresponds to one of the three plots under the said Khata namely, Plot No. 101/3 and also 100/3. On perusal of Ext.1, it is revealed that in so far as Plot No.101/2 is concerned, the same is specifically stated to have been settled in Rayati status in favour of Durga Prasad Panda vide C.P. No. 506/1970. Similar endorsement is made in respect of Sabik Plot No.101/4. In so far as Plot No. 101/3 is concerned, the same is mentioned as Inam land and in the remarks column mentioned „Faisalinama‟. The meaning and implication of „Faisalinama‟ has not been stated by any of the parties. Nonetheless, prima facie, there being absence of specific endorsement regarding settlement, it cannot be definitely said that said plot was settled in favour of Durga Prasad Panda in Rayati status.

19. Be that as it may.

20. It is not disputed that Plot No. 101/3 measured Ac. 0.50 dec. After death of Durga Prasad Panda his successor-in-interest, Radhanath and his sons executed Page 15 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13 RSD on 31.07.1970 (Ext.2) in favour of one Srinibas Sahoo for the entire extent of Ac.0.50 dec. Srinibas Sahoo, in turn executed RSD on 17.03.1978 (Ext.3) in favour of one Balakrushna Behera transferring Ac.0.08 dec. Said purchased land was in turn transferred to one Jagdish Panigrahi vide RSD dated 03.11.1980 (Ext.4). Jagdish Panigrahi sold said purchased land of Ac.0.08 dec. in favour of Gayatri Panigrahi (plaintiff No.1) vide RSD dated 13.02.1990 (Ext.5), Thus, Srinibas Sahoo was still left with Ac.0.42 dec. land. Interestingly Ac.0.36 dec. out of the said land was recorded in his name in Hal settlement as per ROR published on 30.04.1998 (Ext.21). What happened to the remaining 0.06 dec. out of Ac.0.42 dec. has not been clearly stated by any of the parties though the plaintiff claims to have forcibly possessed the same. This plea of forcible possession resulting in prescription of title shall be considered later. For the moment it would suffice to note that Ac. 0.36 dec. of land appertaining to Sabik Plot No.101/3 was recorded in the name of one Srinibas Sahoo in the Hal settlement. This implies, notwithstanding the Page 16 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13 endorsement in the Sabik ROR marked Ext.1, the State has accepted Srinibas Sahoo‟s title at least over a major portion of Sabik Plot No. 101/3, i.e., to the extent of Ac.0.036 dec. Therefore, the State cannot question the title of the plaintiffs at least in respect of A.0.08 dec. of land transferred by Srinibas Sahoo vide Ext.5 from out of the same Sabik Plot. It goes without saying that the State cannot adopt different standards for different tenants. By necessary implication and conduct, the State must be held to have accepted the title of the original owner, namely Durga Prasad Panda over the plot in question. There is thus, no way by which the plaintiff‟s claim of title on the basis of the Ext.5 can be denied. Be it noted that the State does not dispute the possession of the plaintiffs.

21. The State relies upon the „Yadast‟ report, marked Ext.12, wherein the land was recorded as "Abadajogya Anabadi". It is stated that the plaintiffs were not present during field enquiry and therefore, could not prove their title. This appears to be bald statement as, merely by recording the absence of the land owner at the time of field Page 17 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13 enquiry, his title acquired through lawful means cannot be nullified. Secondly, the term "Abadajogya Anabadi‟, loosely translated, would mean habitable but uninhabited land. Surprisingly, the ROR prepared on the basis of such Yadast in the name of the State, i.e. Ext.8 mentions the kisam as Mill Ghara(Mill house). Further, the Yadast relating to the land of Srinibas Sahoo on the basis of which ROR was published in his name (Ext.21) reveals that he being present during field enquiry, produced the relevant documents and was found to be in possession, for which the plots were recorded in his name. Thus, as it transpires from the above documentary evidence, only because of the absence of the plaintiffs at the time of field enquiry the suit plots were recorded in the name of the State. In his cross- examination, plaintiff No.2 being examined as P.W.-1 has stated under paragraph-49 that during settlement operation he was outside his village. In other words, a plausible explanation was offered for his absence, which has not been rebutted. In any case, as between the sale deed, which this Court has held to be valid and the Yadast followed by the Page 18 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13 ROR (Ext.8), obviously the former would have more value in view of the well settled proposition of law that entries in the revenue records cannot create or extinguish title.

22. Coming to sale deeds Exts. 6 & 7, it is stated that one Bansidhar Panda was in possession over Ac. 0.36 dec. of land relating to Sabik Plot No. 100/3. Out of such land, he sold Ac.0.03 3/16 to Subodh Panigrahi, who in turn sold the same to plaintiff No.2 vide RSD marked Ext.6. Bansidhar Panda also sold Ac.0.6 6/16 dec. to Parsuram Behera, who in turn sold the same to plaintiff No.2 vide RSD marked Ext.7. Thus, in all the plaintiff No.2 purchased land measuring Ac.0.10 dec. This land corresponds to Sabik Plot No. 100/3, which was possessed by Bansidhar Panda. Nothing has been placed on record to show as to how said Bansidhar Panda acquired title. But then fact remains that he sold the land to Subodh Panigrahi and Parsuram Behera by executing registered sale deeds. Both of them sold their respective purchased lands to plaintiff No.2. The Yadast marked Ext.12 is in respect of the Plot No.100/3 part to the extent of Ac.0.260 dec. and Ac.0.090 dec. and Ac.101/3 to Page 19 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13 the extent of 0.100, all of which were recorded in favour of the State as "Abadajogya Anabadi". This Court already held that mere absence of plaintiffs at the time of field enquiry cannot nullify their title. It must be kept in mind that the RSDs vide Exts. 6 & 7 carry a presumption of correctness in the absence of any rebuttal evidence. Therefore, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs did not acquire any title in respect of Ac.0.10 dec. on the strength of Exts.6 & 7. Both the Courts below appear to have lost sight of the aforementioned vital aspects and disbelieved the flow of title from the original owners to the persons who acquired title in between.

23. Both the Courts below have held that the plaintiff not having sought for correction of the entries in the ROR within three years of its publication, the same have become final and cannot be gone into by the Civil Court. There is no dispute that the ROR was published on 30.12.2013. What both the courts below seem to have lost sight of is, the fact that the suit of the plaintiffs for declaration is based on antecedent title, which this Court has found to exist in their favour. It is also accepted by the Page 20 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13 defendants that the plaintiffs are in possession. The question is, whether recording of the land in the name of the State in the ROR can extinguish the title accrued in favour of the plaintiffs. The answer can obviously be in the negative. It is fairly well settled in law that notwithstanding the lapse of the stipulated period under the Odisha Survey and Settlement Act, a plaintiff‟s suit based on antecedent title and possession cannot be rejected as the ROR by itself does not create or extinguish title. Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Basanti @ Basantirani Jena vs. State of Odisha (2016) Supp.1 OLR 129. The relevant observations made in the judgment are reproduced below:

"11 Law is fairly well settled that in a suit based on antecedent title, when the Court finds the same in favour of the plaintiff and also finds his possession to have been there over the suit land, even if he does not call in question the wrong recording of the suit land in the settlement operation within a period of three years as prescribed in Article 58 of the Limitation Act and also as prescribed in Section 42 of the OSS Act, he cannot be shown the door of exit and cannot be non-suited on that ground, on the face of the settled law that the entry in the record of right does neither create title in favour of someone who in fact does not have it nor does extinguish the title of the true owner in respect of the said land. So, in that view of the matter when the title holder continues to remain in possession of the property despite of said wrong recording his non filing of the suit within a period of three years from the date of Page 21 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13 publication of the said erroneous ROR cannot extinguish his right, title and interest over the property and as such he does not become disentitled to continue to be in possession as of that.

The aforesaid discussion and reasons provide the answer to the substantial question of law accordingly and it runs in favour of the plaintiff- appellant"

This Court is therefore, unable to concur with the finding of both the courts below in this regard.

24. It would be proper to examine the plea of adverse possession raised by the plaintiff. According to them, in so far as Sabik Plot No. 101/3 is concerned, they acquired title over Ac.0.08 dec. by virtue of the RSD dated 13.12.1990 and forcibly possessed Ac.0.06 lands belonging to Srinibas Sahoo. This Court has perused the evidence of both P.Ws.1 & 2 in this regard along with the pleadings. The plaintiffs have not come up with a definite case as to when exactly they started forcibly possessing the aforementioned land. It was argued that they forcibly possessed the land from the date of their purchase of the adjoining land. This is an unacceptable argument for the reason that it can scarcely be believed that their vendor would deliver possession of the lands sold and allow them to forcibly Page 22 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13 possess another portion simultaneously. That apart, nothing has been placed on record to show that the said Ac. 0.06 dec. was recorded in the name of Srinibas Sahoo rather, the evidence shows that only Ac.0.36 dec. was recorded in the name of Srinibas Sahoo. It cannot therefore, be held that he was the true owner in respect of Ac.0.06 dec. said to be under forcible possession of the plaintiff.

25. The plaintiffs further claim that in so far as Sabik Plot No. 100/3 is concerned, after sale of Ac.0.10 dec. of land, the vendor, Bansidhar Panda was left with Ac.0.26 dec. which was forcibly possessed by them. This again is a somewhat non-specific and vague plea inasmuch as it has not been conclusively shown that Bansidhar Panda was the lawful owner of Ac.0.26 dec. of land. Moreover, since when and in what manner the plaintiffs entered into such land, if at all, has not been demonstrated in the least. It has simply been stated that the plaintiffs forcibly possessed such land. This can hardly satisfy the ingredients of adverse possession. The plaintiffs have made a desperate attempt to prove adverse possession by impleading the so called land Page 23 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13 owners as defendants, who supported their stand. This is a plea that can be considered only to be rejected for the reason that the moment the true owner supports the plea of forcible possession of his land by another person, the question of hostile animus automatically falls to the ground. This Court thus finds that two essential ingredients of adverse possession namely, Corpus Possidendi as well as Animus Possidendi entirely lacking.

26. From a conspectus of analysis of facts, evidence and the contentions raised, this Court finds that the plaintiffs have been able to establish their title in respect of the Sabik Plot No. 101/3 to the extent of Ac.0.08 dec. on the strength of RSDs dated 13.12.1990 (Ext.5) and in respect of Sabik Plot No. 100/3 to the extent of Ac.0.10 dec. on the strength of RSDs dated 13.02.1990 and 20.07.1993 (Exts. 6 and 7). This Court further finds that the claim of adverse possession over Ac.0.06 dec relating to Sabik Plot No. 101/3 and Ac.0.26 dec. of Sabik Plot No. 100/3 has no legs to stand. The impugned judgments therefore, warrant Page 24 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13 interference appropriately. The substantial question of law framed is answered accordingly.

27. In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The impugned judgments are set aside. The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed in part by declaring their right, title and interest and possession in respect of the lands covered under Exts. 5, 6 & 7. No order as to costs.

..............................

Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 5th April, 2025/ A.K. Rana, P.A./ Puspanjali, Sr. Steno Page 25 of 25

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Orissa High Court