JUDGMENT

A. S. NAIDU, J. — The order passed by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Southern Division), Berhampur, in O.P.L.E.Revision No. 2 of 1992 directing eviction of the petitioner from the encroached land, after realising penalty and assessment, is impugned in this writ application.

2. The subject matter of the dispute has a chequered career. The petitioner asserts that she is in possession of Ac. 0.74 cents of land appertaining to Sabik Plot No. 800/2 of mouja Ankuli near Berhampur. The said plot corresponds to Hal Plot No. 91 having an area of Ac. 0.597 decimals and Hal Plot No. 93 having an area of Ac. 0.202 decimals in mouza Kolapur in Berhampur town (hereinafter referred as the ‘case lands’). The opp. party No. 5 also claims to be in possession of the case lands. The petitioner asserts that in view of her continuous, uninterrupted and exclusive possession since 1929, she has acquired valid right, title and interest over the land by way of adverse possession. At the other hand, opposite party No. 5, an adjacent land owner, claimed to have encroached upon a portion of the case land. The inter se claim between the petitioner and opposite party No. 5 culminated in Title Suit No. 69 of 1977 in the Court of the Munsif, Berhampur. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner (plaintiff) and it was declared that the petitioner is in exclusive possession of the case land since 1929 and has acquired title by adverse possession. The judgment and decree passed by the Munsif was challenged by opposite party No. 5 in Title Appeal No. 47 of 1979. The learned District Judge, Ganjam-Boudh, Berhampur confirmed the judgment and decree passed in the suit. Thereafter the matter came before this Court in Second Appeal No. 192 of 1983. This Court also confirmed the findings arrived at by the learned Courts below and confirmed the findings that the plaintiff-petitioner is in exclusive possession of the case land since 1929 and dismissed the Second Appeal. Thus, the assertions made by the petitioner that she is in possession of the case land since 1929 was confirmed by competent civil Court and became final and binding.

3. During the pendency of the litigation before the Civil Court, a proceeding under the provisions of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.P.L.E. Act’) was initiated against the petitioner treating her to be an encroacher. The said proceeding was disposed of by order dated September 27, 1964 passed by the Tahasildar, Berhampur, who observed as follows :

“Perused the report of the Revenue Supervisor dated 25.9.64. On inspection it is found that the encroachment is existing since 1929 and not objectionable. It is purely a Sivai Jama case and an assignment file in this office is pending in favour of the en¬croacher. From the records, it is seen that no penalty has been assessed at any time and all along. T.A. was being charged. All the formalities for assignment were completed and only submission proposals to the higher authorities are pending. In view of the facts on record and on the sport, I do not find this is an objectionable case. The encroachment is treated as unobjectionable and may be settled with the encroacher on payment of premium as per the approved principles for the entire area of Ac. 0.74 in S. No. 800/2. Send the records to the Settlement department for realisation of Salami and settlement of the lands. The file bearing No. B-II-26/63 of this office regarding assign¬ment is hereby closed.”

(quoted from writ petition)

It is pertinent to mention here that the order passed by the Tahasildar dated 27.9.1964 was not challenged nor varied or set aside by any of the authorities under the O.P.L.E. Act and has become final and binding.

However, in the year 1975, a second proceeding under the same O.P.L.E. Act was initiated for eviction of the petitioner and the same was registered as L.E.Case No. 60 of 1975 by the Tahsildar, Berhampur. The Tahasildar, after