Orissa High Court
Chakradhar Misha(Dead) And vs State Of Orissa on 14 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.A. No.209 of 1999
(In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908)
Chakradhar Misha(dead) and .... Appellants
others
-versus-
State of Orissa, represented .... Respondent
through Collector, Keonjhar For Appellants - Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Advocate For Respondent - Mr. G. Mohanty, Learned Standing Counsel for the State(For the Respondent No.1) CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :15.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment :14.11.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This 2nd Appeal has been preferred against the confirming Judgment.
2. The appellants in this 2nd Appeal were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.27 of 1988 and the appellants before the 1st Appellate Court in the first appeal vide T.A. No.12 of 1993.
The respondent in this 2nd Appeal, i.e., State was the defendant before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.27 of 1988 and respondent before the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.12 of 1993. S.A. No.209 of1999 // 2 //
3. The suit properties described in Schedule-A of the Plaint in the suit vide T.S. No.27 of 1988 are two plots, i.e., A.0.09 decimals out of A 1.09 decimals of Plot No.1575 under Khata No.481 and A. 0.03 decimals out of A. 0.09 decimals of Plot No.1563 under Khata No.482 in Mouza- Attopur-Badapokharital under Keonjhargarh Police Station in the district of Keonjhar.
4. According to the averments made by the plaintiffs in their plaint, the suit properties described in Schedule-"A" of the plaint corresponds to Sabik Plot No.47 under Sabik Khata No.5 of village-Hatiatanagara. The area of Sabik Plot No.47 under Sabik Khata No.5 was A.1.16 decimals.
Out of that A.1.16 decimals of Sabik Plot No.47, State Government acquired A.0.23 decimals for Keonjhar Jail. After acquisition of A.0.23 decimals, out of A. 1.16 decimals from Sabik Plot No.47 for Keonjhar Jail, the rest land of that Sabik Plot No.47 was A.0.93 decimals. One Udia Jena was the owner of Sabik Plot No.47 under Sabik Khata No.5.
The plaintiffs are two brothers. Plaintiff no.2 is the elder brother and plaintiff no.1 is the younger brother. After the death of the father of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff no.2 was the Karta of their joint family. S.A. No.209 of 1999 Page 2 of 22
// 3 // The recorded owner of Sabik Plot No.47 under Sabik Khata No.5, i.e., Udia Jena sold the aforesaid A.0.93 decimals of plot Sabik Plot No.47(which was with Udia Jena after acquisition of A.0.23 decimals from that Plot for Keonjhar Jail) to the plaintiffs on dated 06.01.1959 through registered sale deed and the said sale deed was executed in favour of plaintiff no.2 as a Karta of the family of the plaintiffs. That purchased A.0.93 decimals of Sabik Plot No.47 was mutated in favour of the plaintiffs through mutation case No.591 of 1959 and RoR of that A. 0.93 decimals was prepared in their names after mutation.
As per amicable family partition between the plaintiffs, the said purchased A.0.93 decimals of Sabik Plot No.47 had fallen in the share of the plaintiff no.1. For which, plaintiff no.1 is the owner of that A. 0.93 decimals including the suit properties. Because, the suit properties are part of that A. 0.93 decimals of Sabik Plot No.47. Though, the plaintiff no.1 is the exclusive owner of the suit properties, still then, for the proper adjudication of the suit, the plaintiff no.2 has been arrayed as a party in the suit as plaintiff no.2.
During Hal Settlement of the year 1982, out of the purchased land, i.e., A.0.93 decimals of Sabik Plot No.47, Hal RoR was prepared under Khata No.206, Plot No.1579 for an area A. 0.61 decimals in the name of the plaintiffs and in the said Hal settlement, the Village- Hatiatanagara as S.A. No.209 of 1999 Page 3 of 22 // 4 // per Sabik Settlement was changed to Village/Mouza-Attopur- Badapokharital under Keonjhargarh Police Station in the district of Keonjhar. Though the plaintiffs are the owners and in possession over A. 0.93 decimals of land from Sabik Plot No.47 under Sabik Khata No.5, but, only A. 0.61 decimals therefrom has been recorded in their names vide Hal Plot No.1579 under Hal Khata No.206 and the shortage area thereof, i.e., A.0. 32 decimals has been erroneously included in the Plot No.1575 under Hal Khata No.481 and Hal Plot No.1563 under Hal Khata No.482 in the name of the State and Bibekananta Pattnaik, but, the ownership and possession of the same is with the plaintiffs.
So, the plaintiffs filed a suit vide T.S. No.20 of 1982 in the court of the learned Sub-ordinate, Judge, Keonjhar against the Superintendent District Jail, Keonjhar and Sri Bibekananda Pattnaik along with others.
That, in the said suit vide T.S. No.20 of 1982, a Civil Court Commissioner submitted a report stating that, the area of Hal Plot No.1579 is A. 0.54 decimals, but, not A. 0.61 decimals, for which, there is shortage of A.0.39 decimals, but, not A.0.32 decimals.
Out of the said shortage area, i.e., A.0.39 decimals, A.0.03 decimals has been included erroneously in Hal Plot No.1563, A. 0.03 decimals has been included erroneously in Hal Plot No.1578 and A. 0.24 S.A. No.209 of 1999 Page 4 of 22 // 5 // decimal has been included erroneously in Hal Plot No.1577 and A. 0.09 decimals has been included erroneously in Hal Plot No.1575.
Subsequent to the filing of Amin Commissioner's report in the suit vide T.S. No.20 of 1982, the said suit was withdrawn by the plaintiffs with a liberty to file an another suit after proper compliances of the statutory provisions of Section 80 of the C.P.C.
The disputes of the plaintiffs with Bibekananda Pattnaik in respect of A. 0.24 decimals of Plot No.1577 and A. 0.03 decimals of Plot No.1575, i.e., in total in respect of A. 0.27 decimals was resolved finally.
So, the disputes of the plaintiffs in respect of A. 0.03 decimals of Hal Plot No.1563 and A.0.09 decimals of Hal Plot No.1575, i.e., in total A.0.12 decimals remained alive with the defendant/State.
When, the Superintendent, District Jail, Keonjhar through its employees put a fence forcibly on the North of suit Plot No.1575, damaging fence of the plaintiffs, then, in order to file the suit, the plaintiffs served statutory notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C. on dated 05.04.1988, on the defendant/State through its Collector and after complying the provisions of Section 80 of the C.P.C., they(plaintiffs filed the suit vide T.S. No.27 of 1988 against the defendant/State praying for a declaration that, they(plaintiffs) have right, title and interest S.A. No.209 of 1999 Page 5 of 22 // 6 // over the suit properties and to declare that, the defendant/State has no right, title and interest on the same and to direct the defendant/State for correction of the RoR of the suit properties from the name of the State/defendant to the names of the plaintiffs and to confirm their possession on the same, in alternative recover the possession of the same, if, they(plaintiffs) are found to be dispossessed from the suit properties during the pendency of the suit along with other reliefs, to which, they(plaintiffs) are entitled for.
The defendant/State contested the suit of plaintiffs by filing the written statement taking its stands that, the plaintiffs have no cause of action for filing the suit. The suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation, as the suit has not been filed within stipulated time for correction of the RoR. The suit of the plaintiffs is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, i.e., the jail authority as well as to the general public in respect of Hal Plot No. 1563. The suit is bad for non-service of valid notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C. The defendant/State also denied the averments made in the plaint of the plaintiffs and disputed to the ownership and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit properties.
The specific stands/pleas of the State/defendant in its written statement was that, the suit properties are the part and parcel of "Jail Garden" of District Jail, Keonjhar and "Smasana." The Hal Plot No.1563 S.A. No.209 of 1999 Page 6 of 22 // 7 // corresponds to part of Sabaik Plot No.47. The status of suit Hal Plot No.1563 under Hal Khata No.482 is "Smasana" and the same has been recorded in "Sarbasadharan" khata of Government.
Hal Plot No.1575 under Hal Khata No.481 corresponds to part of Sabik Plot Nos.46/48, 47/89 and 47 and its present status in the Hal RoR is "Rakshit".
Hal Plot No.1563 under Hal Khata No.482 being "Smasana", the same had/has been using by the community at large, in which, the plaintiffs have no interest and possession.
So far as suit Plot No.1575 is concerned, the same is under the possession of District Jail, Keonjhar having been fenced properly by the Jail Authority. For which, the plaintiffs have no ownership and possession in the suit properties, but, the defendant/State is the owner of the same. If it is assumed that, the suit properties belong to the plaintiffs, still then, when the Jail Authorities of District Jail, Keonjhar and the public on behalf of the State are in possession over the same for a long time, for which, the defendant/State has acquired title over the suit properties on the basis of its long and continuous possession. So, title of the plaintiffs over the same do not survive. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed against the defendant/State with cost. S.A. No.209 of 1999 Page 7 of 22
// 8 //
5. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies between the parties, altogether nine numbers of issues were framed by the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.27 of 1988 and the said issues are:-
Issues
1. Is the suit maintainable under law?
2. Have the plaintiffs any cause of action to bring the suit against the defendant/State?
3. Is the suit barred by law of limitation?
4. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
5. Is the suit bad for non-service of valid notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C.?
6. Is the suit grossly undervalued?
7. Have the plaintiffs or their predecessors any right, title and interest over the suit land and were in possession of the same?
8. To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled?
9. Whether the defendant/State has acquired right, title and interest over the suit land by adverse possession?
6. In order to substantiate the aforesaid reliefs, sought for by the plaintiffs in the suit vide T.S. No.27 of 1988 against the defendant/State, the plaintiffs examined altogether three numbers of witnesses including the plaintiff no.1 as P.W.1 and relied upon the documents vide Exts.1 to
14. On the contrary, in order to nullify/defeat the suit of the plaintiffs, the defendant examined one witness, i.e., one Amin as D.W.1 and relied upon the documents vide Exts.A to K on its behalf. S.A. No.209 of 1999 Page 8 of 22
// 9 //
7. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials, documents and evidence available in the record, the learned Trial Court answered issue nos.7, 4, 2, 1 and 8 in favour of the defendant/State and against the plaintiffs and answered issue nos.3, 5, 6 and 9 in favour of the plaintiffs and basing upon the findings and observations made by the learned Trial Court in issue nos.7, 4, 2, 1 and 8 against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendant/State, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.27 of 1988 on contest against the defendant/State with cost as per its judgment and decree dated 07.01.1993 and 29.01.1993 respectively assigning the reasons that, "The plaintiffs have become failure to establish the identity of the suit properties and they(plaintiffs) are not able to establish their ownership over the suit properties. Because, they(plaintiffs) have failed to establish that, they have purchased the suit properties.
When, the present status of the suit Hal Plot No.1563 under Khata No.481 is "Smasana" and when, the plaintiffs have claimed A. 0.03 decimals out of A 0.09 decimals from suit Hal Plot No.1563, for which, the said suit Hal Plot No.1563 being the communal land as a "Smasana" the villagers Mouza-Attopur-Badapokharital under Keonjhargarh Police Station in the district of Keonjhar are the necessary parties. Therefore, in absence of the villagers of Mouza- S.A. No.209 of 1999 Page 9 of 22
// 10 // Attopur-Badapokharital, the suit of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit Hal Plot No.1563 is not entertainable."
8. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.27 of 1988 passed by the learned Trial Court, the plaintiffs challenged the same by preferring the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.12 of 1993 being the appellants against the defendant/State arraying the (defendant/State) as respondent.
9. After hearing, from both the sides, the learned 1st Appellate Court dismissed that 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.12 of 1993 of the plaintiffs on contest as per its judgment and decree dated 02.04.1999 and 16.04.1999 respectively concurring/confirming the findings and observations made by the learned Trial Court.
10. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the dismissal of the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.12 of 1993 of the plaintiffs passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court as per its judgment and decree dated 02.04.1999 and 16.04.1999 respectively, the plaintiffs challenged the same preferring this 2nd appeal being the appellants against the defendant/State arraying the defendant/State as respondent. S.A. No.209 of 1999 Page 10 of 22
// 11 //
11. When, during the pendency of this 2nd appeal, both the appellants(plaintiffs) expired, then, their legal heirs have been substituted in their places as appellants.
12. This 2nd Appeal was admitted on formulation of the following substantial questions of law and the said substantial questions of law are : -
(i) Whether, the concurrent findings of the learned trial court and 1st appellate court that, the plaintiffs failed to establish the identity of the suit properties in both the suit plots are acceptable under law?
(ii) Whether, the findings and observations made by the learned trial court and 1st appellate court that, the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit properties, as they(plaintiffs) have failed to establish that, they have purchased the suit properties are sustainable under law?
13. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
14. When, both the aforesaid formulated substantial questions of law are inter-linked having ample nexus with each other according to the findings and observations made by the leaned trial court and 1 st appellate court in their respective judgments and decrees on the basis of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, then, both the formulated S.A. No.209 of 1999 Page 11 of 22 // 12 // substantial questions of law are taken up together analogously for their discussions hereunder :-
15. The suit properties described in Schedule-A of the plaint are A. 0.09 decimals out of A. 1.09 decimals of Hal Plot No.1575 under Hal Khata No.481 and A 0.03 decimals out of A. 0.09 decimals of Hal Plot No.1563 under Hal Khata No.482.
Both the suit Hal Khatas vide Hal Khata Nos.481 and 482 have been recorded in the Hal Settlement in the name of the State/Government.
The Kisam of the suit Hal Plot No.1563 is "Smasana". As per Law Lexicon, the meaning of "Smasana" is, a place set apart, in which, the dead are burned(cremation ground).
"Smasana" is a communal land.
16. The nature and character of "Smasana" has already been clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decision : -
In a case between Jagpal Singh and others vrs. State of Punjab and others : reported in 2011(I) OJR-648(S.C.) that, cremation ground or graveyard etc. are communal land, in which, the community has interest.S.A. No.209 of 1999 Page 12 of 22
// 13 //
17. When, the suit Hal Plot No.1563 is situated in Mouza-Attopur- Badapokharital and when the present status of the suit Hal Plot No.1563 in the RoR is "Smasana" and when a "Smasana" by its very nature communal land, for which, the villagers of suit Mouza-Attopur- Badapokharital are the necessary parties to the suit.
Therefore, prior to the filing of the suit by the plaintiffs in respect of the suit Hal Plot No.1563, compliance of the provisions to Order-1, Rule-8 of the C.P.C. was necessary by them (plaintiffs).
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Stephen Issac vrs. State of Kerala and others : reported in 2024(4) Civil Court Cases-171(Kerala) that, when, there is sameness of interest or community interest in respect of the suit land, in that case, the pre-requisite of compliance the Order-1, Rule-8 of the C.P.C., as the representative character suit, is required to be complied with by the plaintiffs before filing the suit.
(ii) In a case between Millan Kumar Giri and Twelve others vrs.
State of Odisha and Eleven others : reported in 2021(2) OJR-371 that, suit for declaration of title was filed by the plaintiff over the suit land, recorded as Road in the RoR. The said RoR was published on dated 10.10.1988, but, the suit was filed in the year 1995. Held, when the suit was filed without complying the provisions of Order-1, Rule-8 of the C.P.C., the suit in respect of the suit land is rightly dismissed, because, the suit land is the communal nature of land, in which, community has interest.
S.A. No.209 of 1999 Page 13 of 22
// 14 //
18. Here, in this suit/appeal at hand, when the present Kisam in the RoR of the suit Hal Plot No.1563 is "Smasana" and when, as per the ratio of the decision reported in 2011(I) OJR-648(S.C.), "Smasana" is a communal nature land, in which, the entire villagers of suit village- Attopur-Badapokharital has sameness of interest, then at this juncture, in view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the suit of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit Hal Plot No.1563(whose existing Kisam in the RoR is "Smasana") without prior compliance of the provisions of Order-1, Rule-8 of the C.P.C. was not maintainable. Because, the villagers of Mouza-Attopur-Badapokharital were the necessary parties in the said suit in respect of Hal Suit Plot No.1563, but, they(villagers of Attopur-Badapokharital) have not been arrayed as parties to the suit.
Therefore, the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs by the learned trial court in respect of the suit Hal Plot No.1563 and the confirmation to the said part in respect of the suit Hal Plot No.1563 by the learned 1st appellate court cannot be held as erroneous.
For which, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs in respect of the Hal Plot No.1563 and confirmation of the said part of the judgment of the learned S.A. No.209 of 1999 Page 14 of 22 // 15 // trial court in respect of suit Hal Plot No.1563 by the learned 1st appellate court in T.A. No.12 of cannot be held as erroneous.
19. So far as the suit of the plaintiffs in respect of the rest part of the suit properties, i.e., A. 0.09 decimals out of A.1.09 decimals of suit Hal Plot No.1575 under suit Hal Khata No.481 is concerned;
it is the specific plea/case of the State/defendant that, "the Jail Authorities are in possession over the entire area of suit Hal Plot No.1575 including the suit land, i.e., A. 0.09 decimals of that suit Hal Plot No.1575 since long, for which, the State has become the owner of the same, in which, the plaintiffs have no interest or possession."
20. At the time of cross-examination to the Plaintiff No.1(P.W.1, Chakradhara Mishra) on behalf of the defendant/State, it was suggested on behalf of the defendant/State to the plaintiff no.1(P.W.1, Chakradhara Mishra) that, "the defendant/State has acquired right, title and interest over the said suit land by remaining in possession over the same for more than twelve years continuously with the knowledge of the plaintiffs, to which, plaintiff no.1(P.W.1) Chakradhar Mishra denied." S.A. No.209 of 1999 Page 15 of 22
// 16 //
21. The above suggestions of the defendant/State to the plaintiff no.1(P.W.1, Chakradhara Mishra) on behalf of the State/defendant during the trial of the suit on the basis of the pleadings of the State/defendant is ultimately going to show that, "the defendant/State has claimed title in respect of A. 0.09 decimals of suit Hal Plot No.1575 against the plaintiffs by way of adverse possession."
22. It is the settled propositions of law that, plea/claim of adverse possession by the defendant/State against the plaintiffs in respect of A. 0.09 decimals of suit Hal Plot No.1575 is an indirect admission of the State/defendant to the identity of the suit land, i.e., A. 0.09 decimals in suit Hal Plot No.1575 as well as to the ownership of the plaintiffs over the same.
Because, the plea of adverse possession of a defendant over the suit properties against the plaintiffs itself is an admission to the identity of the suit properties as well as to the ownership of its opponents/plaintiffs on the same.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Jagat Singh and others vrs. Srikishan Dass and others : reported in 2008(3) CCC-173(P&H) that, S.A. No.209 of 1999 Page 16 of 22 // 17 // Once a plea of adverse possession is raised by the defendant, it pre-supposes the title of the plaintiff over the suit property.
Because, title of the plaintiff over the suit properties is deemed to be admitted by the defendant through the plea of adverse possession.
Therefore, the argument raised by the defendant that, the property is not identifiable falls to the ground.
(ii) In a case between Pappayammal vrs. Palanisamy and Ors. :
reported in 2005(3) CCC-167 (Madras)--A party can plead adverse possession, when he admits that, other party has got title.
(iii) In a case between Gurubax Singh (dead) by LRs. vrs.
Karnail Singh : reported in 2008(4) CCC-239(P&H)--The plea of adverse possession of the defendant necessarily implies the admission of the title of the plaintiff.
(iv) In a case between Sultan and Ors. vrs. Kasturi and Ors. :
reported in 2005(4) Civil Law Times-378(P&H) --Adverse Possession--Plea of adverse possession of the defendant is an indirect admission of ownership of plaintiff. (Para-8).
23. In view of the propositions of law enunciated in the aforesaid decisions, the concurrent findings of the learned trial court and learned 1st appellate court that, the suit land, i.e., A.0.09 decimals of suit Hal Plot No.1575 is not identifiable, cannot be sustainable under law, because, as per law, the defendant/State has claimed its title over that A. 0.09 decimals of Hal Plot No.1575 through adverse possession admitting the identity of the said suit land, i.e., A. 0.09 decimals of Hal Suit Plot No.1575 as well the ownership of the plaintiffs on the same.
24. That apart, as per law, the State/defendant is estopped/precluded under law to take the plea of adverse possession against its own citizens S.A. No.209 of 1999 Page 17 of 22 // 18 // like plaintiffs in respect of any suit property including A.0.09 decimals of suit Hal Plot No.1575.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of following decisions:-
(i) In a case between State of Haryana vrs. Mukesh Kumar :
reported in (2011) 10 SCC-404 that, State Government cannot take the plea of adverse possession to grab the property of its citizens. If the protectors of the properties of the citizens will become grabbers of properties of the citizens, such plea will have no protection for the State.
(ii) In a case between State of Haryana and another vrs. Amin Lal(Since Deceased) Through His Lrs and others : reported in 2024(4) CCC-222(S.C.) that, State cannot claim adverse possession over property of its own citizens.
Allowing State to appropriate private property through adverse possession would undermine constitutional rights of citizens and erode public trust in government.
(iii) In a case between Vidya Devi vrs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and others : reported in 2020(1) Civil Court Cases- 718(S.C.) that, State being a welfare State cannot be permitted to take plea of adverse possession.
(iv) In a case between Indira vrs. Arumugam and another :
reported in AIR 1999(S.C.) 1549 or (1998) 1 SCC-614 that, the State cannot take plea of adverse possession.
(v) In a case between Smt. Karnam Annapurna and others vrs.
Collector, Gajapati ad another : in RSA No.312 of 2015 decided on 10.10.2022 that, no Government departments should be permitted to perfect their title by way of adverse possession. S.A. No.209 of 1999 Page 18 of 22
// 19 //
(vi) In a case between Vidya Devi vrs. State of Himanchal Pradesh and others : reported in 2020(1) OJR-660(S.C.) that, State cannot be permitted to perfect its title over land by invoking doctrine of adverse possession to grab property of its own citizens.
(vii) In a case between Karnam Annapurna and others vrs. Collector, Gajapati and another : reported in 2023(1) CLR-79(Para Nos.13 and 15) that, defendant, who are State (Forest Department) cannot be permitted to perfect title by adverse possession. Because, Forest Department cannot be allowed to retain or continue with possession nor can be permitted to perfect their title by adverse possession. Defendants are directed to pay compensation to the plaintiff.
25. When, it is the settled propositions of law that, State/defendant is estopped/precluded under law to claim title over any property against its own citizens like the plaintiffs through adverse possession and when, in the suit/appeal at hand, the State/defendant has claimed title through adverse possession over the suit land i.e., A. 0.09 decimals in Hal Plot No.1575 indirectly admitting the identity of the said land as well as title and ownership of the plaintiffs on the same, then, at this juncture, the concurrent findings of the learned trial court and learned 1st appellate court that, the plaintiffs have failed to establish the identity of suit land, i.e., A. 0.09 decimals out of A.1.09 decimals in Hal Suit Plot No.1575 and they(plaintiffs) have failed to establish their ownership over the said A.0.09 decimals out of A.1.09 decimals of Hal Suit Plot No.1575 cannot be sustainable under law.
S.A. No.209 of 1999 Page 19 of 22
// 20 //
26. As per discussions and observations made above, when, it is held that, the identity of the suit land, i.e. A. 0.09 decimals in suit Hal Plot No.1575 under Khata No.481 in Mouza-Ataupur Badapokharital is established and title of the plaintiffs on the same is also established through an indirect admission of the defendant/State to the same as per law and when, it is held that, the suit of the plaintiffs in respect of A. 0.03 decimals of suit Hal Plot No.1563 is to be failed and the suit of the plaintiffs in respect of the A.0.09 decimals of suit Hal Plot No.1575 is to be allowed, then at this juncture, this 2nd appeal filed by the plaintiffs(appellants) is to be allowed in part.
27. Therefore, there is justification under law for making interference in part with the judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial court and learned 1st appellate court through this 2nd appeal filed by the appellants(plaintiffs).
As such, there is some merit in this 2nd appeal filed by the plaintiffs, the same is to be allowed in part.
28. In result, this 2nd appeal filed by the appellants(plaintiffs) is allowed in part on contest, but, without cost.
The judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial court in dismissing the suit of the appellants(plaintiffs) vide T.S. No.27 of 1988 S.A. No.209 of 1999 Page 20 of 22 // 21 // in respect of A.0.03 decimals out of A. 0.09 decimals of that suit Hal Plot No.1563 under Hal Khata No.481 in Mouza-Attopur-Badapokharital under Keonjhargarh Police Station in the district of Keonjhar and the confirmation to the said part of the judgment in respect of that suit Plot No.1563 by the learned 1st appellate court in T.A. No.12 of 1993 is confirmed.
Whereas, the judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial court and learned 1st appellate court in T.S. No.27 of 1988 and T.A. No.12 of 1993 respectively in dismissing the suit of the appellants(plaintiffs) vide T.S. No.27 of 1988 in respect of A. 0.09 decimals out of A.1.09 decimals of suit Hal Plot No.1575 in Mouza- Attopur-Badapokharital under Keonjhargarh Police Station in the district of Keonjhar are set aside.
29. The suit be and the same filed by the plaintiffs(appellants) vide T.S. No.27 of 1988 in respect of A. 0.03 decimals of suit Plot No.1563 is dismissed.
Whereas the suit be and the same filed by the plaintiffs(appellants) vide T.S. No.27 of 1988 in respect of the suit land, i.e., A.0.09 decimals out of A.1.09 decimals of suit Hal Plot No.1575 is decreed, but, without cost.
S.A. No.209 of 1999 Page 21 of 22
// 22 // The right title and interest of the plaintiffs(appellants) over A. 0.09 decimals out of A.1.09 decimals of suit Hal Plot No.1575 under Hal Khata No.481 in Mouza-Attopur-Badapokharital under Keonjhargarh Police Station in the district of Keonjhar described in Schedule-A of the plaint is declared. It is also declared that, the defendant/State has no right, title and interest over the said A.0.09 decimals out of A.1.09 decimals of suit Hal Plot No.1575. The possession of the plaintiffs(appellants) over that A.0.09 decimals out of A.1.09 decimals of suit Hal Plot No.1575 is confirmed.
The defendant/State is directed for correction of the RoR of the aforesaid area, i.e., A.0.09 decimals of suit Hal Plot No.1575 from the name of the State/defendant to the names of the plaintiffs(appellants).
(A.C. Behera), Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 14th of October, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 14-Nov-2025 17:45:48 S.A. No.209 of 1999 Page 22 of 22