Back
2016 Supreme(Ori) 668
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
D. DASH, J.
Sri Khirod Chandra Naik & others - Appellants
Versus
The Grama Sabha (Village Committee) of village Nisangapur & others - Respondents
R.S.A. NO. 176 OF 2015
Decided On : 04-10-2016
For the Appellants :M/s. Prasanna Ku. Mishra, S.K.Dash, Chandana Das, advocates.
The judgment establishes the legal requirements for adverse possession and the interpretation of the Scheduled Tribe and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers Act in determining land rights.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Land Dispute - Scheduled Tribe and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Right) Act - Section 2(d), Section 3, Section 2(o)
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, as legal representatives of Nilambar Naik, filed a suit for declaration of their title over a land, claiming adverse possession. The defendants, tribal forest dwellers, asserted their rights over the land under the Scheduled Tribe and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish their claim of adverse possession and title over the land. The court dismissed the suit based on this finding.
Issues: The main issues were the plaintiffs' claim of adverse possession and the recognition of their rights under the Scheduled Tribe and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the burden of proof for adverse possession lies with the claimant, requiring open, peaceful, and continuous possession exhibiting hostile animus. The court also highlighted the significance of encroachment proceedings and the requirements for recognition of rights under the Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower court's decision to reject the plaintiffs' claim of adverse possession and title over the land.
JUDGMENT :
This appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Gajapati in R.F.A. No. 23 of 2013 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Parlakhemundi in C.S. No. 49 of 2010.
The above noted six appellants, being the legal representatives of one Nilambar Naik had filed the suit for declaration of their title by virtue of open, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the suit land for upward of the prescribed period with the prayer for mandatory injunction directing the respondents (defendant nos. 1 to 4) to so prepare the land records in their name and for permanently restraining all the respondents from disturbing in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by them.
2. For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial court.
3. Plaintiffs case is that their predecessor-in-interest Nilambar Naik had made the suit land fit for agriculture by clearing the bushes and as such he continued remain in possession of the suit land for more than thirty years. Whereafter plaintiffs being his legal representatives are in cultivating possession of the same. It is stated that the question of recognition of the forest dwellers as to their rights as such arose in view of coming into force of the Scheduled Tribe and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Right) Act. So in the year 2010 as provided in the said Act, Grama Sabha being constituted, the resolution had been passed therein over the rights of defendant nos. 5 to 19 as above so as to be recognized and accordingly for preparation of the record in respect of the suit land. Plaintiffs being aggrieved by the same and apprehending further action in that direction detrimental to their rights and interest as above, filed the suit.
4. Defendant nos. 1 to 4 in the written statement denied the factum of possession of the suit land by Nilambar as also the plaintiffs at any point of time. It is also stated that the defendant nos. 5 to 19 have been in possession of the suit land which is of forest kisam, and they being tribal forest dwellers, their rights as such over the said land have been rightly recognized in consonance with the provision of the Act governing the field. It is also stated that the defendants are in possession of the said land having their houses and have also grown the trees over there. The recommendation of the Gram Sabha is asserted to be correct and that is said to be based on proper field enquiry. Correctness of which has further been ascertained through Government officials.
5. Defendant nos. 5 to 14 in their written statement have denied the factum of possession of the suit land at any point of time by Nilambar. They stated that Nilamber had never cleared the bushes over the suit land and made it fit for cultivation. The claim of possession of the suit land by the plaintiffs had also been denied. The action of the body constituted under the Act are thus said to be just and proper. They claim that they have in possession of the suit land not as trespassers having made forcible entry over the suit land but as the traditional forest dwellers satisfying all the legal requirements as per the provisions of the Act and as such to have been rightly so recognized.
6. Faced with rival pleadings, the trial court framed six issues. Rightly taking up the important issues i.e. issue nos. 4, 5 and 6 for decision at first, upon analysis of evidence and on their assessment in the back drop of the rival pleadings, the claim of right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land has been rejected. It has been said that neither Nilambar nor these plaintiffs have perfected their title over the suit land by adverse possession and they are also not in possession. This finding has resulted in dismissal of the suit.
7. The plaintiffs bein
