Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. The B.D.O., Sonepur issued work order in favour of plaintiff no.2 for renovation of the tank on 18.5.99, Ext.A. The plaintiff no.2 entered into an agreement vide Ext.B. After renovation, he has received payment. Learned appellate court held that P.W.3 in his cross-examination stated that the tank is the only tank in the suit village. The villagers used the tank for taking bath and also take the water of the tank. It is a public tank. He had no knowledge that if Iswar, father of the plaintiffs, made development of the tank as Chairman of the Block. P.W.4 had stated that the tank was the only tank in the village and the villagers were using the water of the tank for irrigation purpose. On analysis of the pleadings and evidence on record, it negatived the claim of the plaintiffs. It further held that neither the plaintiffs, nor their ancestors were in possession of the tank as exclusive owner thereof. It is a public tank and is being used by the public. Plaintiffs admitted that the plaintiff no.2 had done the developmental and renovation work in the tank as leader of the village committee after obtaining required work order from the Government. Ext.10, the Gountia patta, shows that Harihar Panigrahi would construct bandha kata and will renovate the land for the development of the village. There is no such terms and conditions in the said patta that he would be entitled to exercise his own right, title and interest over the bandha kata. As per the terms and conditions of the patta, Ext.10, Harihar Panigrahi was to construct bandha kata for the development of the village. There is no provision in the land laws conferring status of occupancy on Harihar Panigrahi in respect of the tank. The excavation of the tank by the ancestor of the plaintiffs over the Government land as the Gountia of the village does not confer any right of occupancy over the tank under the land laws as per the Sonepur Bhumi Bidhi. The tank was excavated over the Government land. The plaintiffs have no right, title and interest over the same. The tank was excavated by the ancestor of the plaintiffs over the Government land for the development of the village. These are essentially the finding of facts. There is no perversity in the findings. The date of entry into the suit land has not been mentioned. Both the courts held that the plaintiffs have not perfected title by way of adverse possession. The element of hostile animus is absent.