Back
2014 Supreme(Ori) 394
ORISSA HIGH COURT; CUTTACK
B.P. RAY, J.
State of Orissa, through the Collector, Cuttack and another – Appellants
Versus
Orissa Olympic Association, through Hony. General Secretary and others – Respondents
FIRST APPEAL NO. 158 OF 2001
Decided on: 29.11.2014
Advocate Appeared:
For appellants:Addl. Government Advocate
For respondents:M/s. B.H. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate, D.P. Mohanty, J.K. Bastia, B. Das, R.K. Nayak, S.C. Mohanty & T.K. Mohanty (for respondent no.1), M/s. D. Mohapatra, M. Mohapatra G.R. Mohapatra & A. Dash (for respondent nos.2 to 5)
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of public property, the role of state officials, and the need for fair play of justice in disputes involving public property.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Land Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure - Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act - [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [Code of Civil Procedure, Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act] - The court discussed the plaintiff's claim of adverse possession, the validity of the lease, and the jurisdiction of the court under the Code of Civil Procedure and the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act. The court highlighted the importance of public property, the role of state officials, and the need for fair play of justice in disputes involving public property.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed adverse possession of a disputed land and filed a suit against the defendants. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants appealed, alleging collusion between the plaintiff and state officials.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the trial court's judgment and decree, remitting the matter for retrial. It appointed the Collector as the receiver of the disputed property and directed an enquiry into the affairs of the plaintiff-Association. The court also allowed the defendants to adduce evidence and emphasized the need for prompt disposal of the suit.
Issues: The issues included adverse possession, validity of the lease, jurisdiction of the court, and the maintainability of the suit under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of public property, the role of state officials, and the need for fair play of justice in disputes involving public property. It highlighted the need for prompt disposal of the suit and the appointment of a receiver to safeguard the disputed property.
Final Decision: The court set aside the trial court's judgment and decree, remitting the matter for retrial. It appointed the Collector as the receiver of the disputed property and directed an enquiry into the affairs of the plaintiff-Association. The court also allowed the defendants to adduce evidence and emphasized the need for prompt disposal of the suit.
Judgment
B.P. RAY, J.
This is an appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.4.1999 and 21.4.1999 respectively passed in T.S. No. 312 of 1991 by the learned First Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack.
2. The land in dispute more fully described in Schedule-A and hereinafter to be referred to as the “suit land” measures Ac.0.705 decimals out of Ac. 0. 880 decimals appertaining to hal plot No. 7 in hal khata no. 203 corresponding to sabik plot No. 139 (part) of mouza – Cuttack Town.
3. Plaintiff’s case, in short, is that lease for an area of Ac.20.808 decimals appertaining to Sabik Settlement Plot No.156 and a portion of sabik plot Nos. 139, 143, 155 and 177 was granted in favour of the Orissa Olympic Association for the purpose of construction of a Stadium vide Revenue Department order No. 748 dated 29.6.1949 which was communicated in District Office letter No. 10610 dated 5.7.1949. On the basis of the said order, Lease agreement was executed and registered on 4.9.1949 and 24.9.1949 respectively and the said lease was renewed from time to time. The plaintiff – Association thereafter raised a high compound wall enclosing the leasehold land. However, an area measuring Ac. 0. 075 decimals was left out side the compound wall for the purpose of parking of the vehicles. The leasehold area includes an area measuring Ac. 6.520 decimals in sabik plot no. 139, and an area of Ac.0. 048 decimals out of the same was included within the barbed fencing of the old Secretariat. Though an area of Ac. 0.345 decimals in plot no. 149 has been recorded , but on the spot, an area measuring Ac. 6.568 decimals is available and the entire area is within the compound of the Association excepting an area of Ac. 0.075 decimals which has been left out beyond the Compound Wall for the purpose of parking. Due to lack of supervision, during the Hal Settlement the suit land was kept in Rakhit Khata of the State in Hal plot No. 7, khata no. 203 though the plaintiff is in actual physical possession of the said land. Though the hal settlement khatian was published on 11.4.1988, hal settlement map was not made available for which the mistake could not be detected immediately. While the matter stood thus, the Tahasildar initiated an encroachment case, bearing Encroaching Case No. 213/1/90-91 and threatened to dispossess the plaintiff-Association from out of the suit land. As the plaintiff-Association has been in possession of the suit land right from the year 1949, it has perfected its title by way of adverse possession. The plaintiff-Association thereafter issued notice under section 80 C.P.C. and on completion of the prescribed period filed the suit.
4. The defendants-appellants filed written statement admitting that the plaintiff-association is in possession of the area as claimed and has constructed a massive stadium. While denying that the leasehold area of Ac.20.808 decimals includes an area of AC. 6.520 decimals of sabik plot no. 139, they pleaded that the included area is only Ac. 6.222 decimals. It was averred that an area Ac. 20.808 decimals has been leased out for twenty years for construction of stadium as per Government order in letter no. 17484 dated 29.6.1949 and lease deed bearing No. 4524 dated 29.9.1949 was executed and subsequently renewed vide Deed No. 2526 dated 19.4.1974 for a period of another twenty years, i.e., up to 20.4.1989. It was also pleaded that the Government sanctioned an area Ac. 2.703 decimals in their Sanction Order No. 11680 dated 22.2.1959 for construction of Indoor Stadium and an area of Ac. 1.939 decimals for sinking a Swimming Pool, Swimming Club and a Restaurant, but no lease deed in respect of Ac.1.939 has been executed. It was further pleaded that during hal settlement, the total area of Ac. 24.733 decimals has been recoded in the name of the plaintiff-Association including an area of Ac.1.222 decimals out of Ac.1.939 as referred to above fo
