JUDGMENT

P. K. MISRA, J. — Defendant No. 1 is the appellant. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed the suit for declaration of title and for a declaration that defendant No. 1 has not derived any right over the disputed property under the alleged Hata-Patta granted by ex-landlord of Rajakanika Estate and that the ex parte decree ob¬tained by defendant No. 1 in Title Suit No. 5/88 against proforma defendants 2 to 4 (present respondents 2 to 4) is void and not binding on the plaintiff and proforma defendant No. 5 (respondent No. 5). The disputed land is Ac. 7.500 decimals from Plot No. 218, Khata No. 303 of Mauza Chandrasekharpur and is presently recorded as separate plot No. 258/2020 in Hal Khata No. 610.

2. Plaintiff is a statutory body established under the Orissa State Housing Board Act, 1968. Plaintiffs’ case is as follows : The disputed ‘A’ Schedule property belonged to ex-landlord Madhusudan Deb of Patia Estate which was recorded in his name as Anabadi Khata No. 303, Plot No. 218 in the Settlement Record-of-Rights of 1931 with a total area of Ac. 184.018 decimals and was recorded as Jhati Jungle. The said land vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951, in the year 1953. The entire Sabik Plot No. 218 was recorded in the name of the Government under Rakshit Khata No. 472, Plot No. 258 in the Record-of-Rights finally published in the year 1974. The said land was included within the Bhubaneswar Notified Area as per the Notification issued by the Urban Development Department on 25.11.1972. As per the Notification issued by the Revenue Department, all lands included in Bhubaneswar Tahasil were transferred to the manage¬ment and control of the General Administration Department of the State Government (Defendant No. 5) and as such, the disputed land was under the management and control of the General Administra¬tion Department of the State Government. In the Settlement Record-of-Rights of the year 1988, the disputed land also stood recorded in the name of defendant No. 5. Defendant No. 5 trans¬ferred Ac. 31.982 decimals of land including the disputed land to the plaintiff on a premium of Rs. 63,95,400/- as per the allotment order dated 29.4.1989 and the plaintiff took possession of the entire land including the disputed land and thus became owner-in-possession with effect from 29.4.1989. Subsequently while plain¬tiff was taking steps to construct buildings for allotment to intending purchasers, present defendant No. 1 filed OJC No. 3181 of 1989 against the present plaintiff as well as present defend¬ants 2 to 5. From the recitals in the said writ application, the plaintiff came to know that defendant No. 1 had obtained an ex parte decree against present defendants 2 to 4 in respect of the disputed land in T.S.No. 5/88. It is claimed that the plaintiff deliberately omitted to implead the General Administration De¬partment of the State Government as a party in the said suit and had obtained the ex parte decree against present proforma defend¬ants 2 to 4 who were not concerned with the disputed land in any manner and had no authority to represent the State in respect of the disputed land which belonged to the General Administration Department under the Government Notification. Thus, the ex parte decree obtained against parties having no interest over the disputed land is not binding on the real owner, that is to say, defendant No. 5, or the plaintiff who has derived title as a lessee from defendant No. 5, and the said ex parte decree is void. It is further claimed that in the said suit, present de¬fendant No. 1 “played fraud on the Court by giving false evidence as to the source of her title over the suit land and obtained the decree even without exhibiting the Record-of-Rights of 1931 Settlement”. The said Record-of-Rights clearly shows that Anabadi Khata No. 303 stood recorded in the name of Madhusudan Deb of Patia Estate (Killa Patia) and Sailendra Narayan Bhanjadeo from w