A licensee who enters into possession of property with the implied consent of the owner does not commit trespass and is not liable for damages.

A. K. PADHI, J.

( 1 ) THE Orissa Fisheries Development Corporation, defendant No. 1 in Title Suit No. 1 of 1966 is the appellant in First Appeal No. 66 of 1974. State of Orissa through the Collector, Cattack, defendant No. 2 in Title Suit No. 1 of 1966 is the appellant in First Appeal No. 74 of 1974. In both the First Appeals the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 1 of 1966 are challenged. Therefore, both the First Appeals were heard together and this judgment is passed in both the appeals.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF filed the suit seeking for declaration of right, title and interest in the disputed water channel and damages to the tune of Rs. 4,61,001/ -. Assertions in the plaint are that Balia river fishery Sairat comprising an area of A. 271. 96 decs was available to be leased out. On 17-2-1958, plaintiff applied to the Tahasildar, Jujanga for lease of the water channel for pisciculture which was settled on him for a period of six months on payment of Rs. 1,600/ -. On 8-1-1960, there was a public auction for three months and plaintiff took it on auction and the same was extended up to 30-6-1960. On 25-6-1960 again fresh auction was held in which plaintiff was the highest bidder and the Fishing Sairat was settled in his favour. On 1-7-1961, a registered lease deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff for a period of five years and possession was delivered to the plaintiff and the lease deed so executed by defendant No. 2 was valid upto 30-6-1966. The terms and conditions of the lease deed were to clear the weeds within two years, failing which the lease was to be determined. The rents were to be paid within 30 days from the commencement of he fishery year, i. e. the 1st of July of each year and that the lessee is not to sublet the subject matter of the lease or transfer it. The Director of Orissa Fishery Development Corporation invited the plaintiff to enter into an agreement for development of pisciculture. Negotiation, offer and counter offer continued from both the sides but the agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 never materialised. On 24-1-1963, defendant No. 1 suggested for fresh terms but the plaintiff did not agree to the same. As the defendants intended to oust the plaintiff, a complaint was filed before the R. D. C. Ultimately the opposite parties forcibly evicted the plaintiff from the lease hold property, i. e. Balia river. Defendant No. 1 in collusion with defendant No. 2 dispossessed the plaintiff on 1-3-1963 for which he. suffered irreparable loss and could not catch fish. With these averments plaintiff filed the suit seeking for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the water channel from defendant No. 1 and damages against the defendants to the tune of Rs. 4,61,091 / -.

( 3 ) ON notice, defendant No. 1, Orissa Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. filed its written statement. While admitting that the disputed area had been leased out to plaintiff for a period of five years from 1-7-1961, the stand of defendant No. 1 is that after the lease was executed in favour of plaintiff, the Corporation entered into an agreement for taking possession of the area for- the development of fishery with consent of defendant No. 2, State of Orissa, as plaintiff was incapable of making any investment to work out the fishery Sairat. There was a discussion in the presence of the then Chairman, Orissa Fisheries Development Corporation Ltd. , its Managing Director and the plaintiff in the office room of the Chairman on 19-12-1962, after which the plaintiff and the Managing Director on behalf of the Corporation came to certain terms by way of agreement and the same was reduced to writing and in token of their acceptance of this agreement the plaintiff and the Managing Director on behalf of the Corporation signed the same on 20-12-1962. In continuation of this agreement there was another discussion on 23-12-1962 between the plaintiff and the Managing Director, and another agreement was reduced to w