Back
2017 Supreme(Ori) 117
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
A.K. RATH, J.
Satadal Mandal – Appellant
Versus
Collector, Bhadrak and another – Respondents
R.S.A. No.25 of 2011
Decided On : 15-02-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. Samir Kumar Mishra, Miss Pragyna Mohanty
For the Respondents: Mr. P.C. Panda
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to provide substantial evidence of adverse possession in land disputes, as failure to do so can result in the dismissal of the suit.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Land Dispute - C.S. R.O.R., M.S.R.O.R. - [Adverse Possession] - [Land Dispute] - [C.S. R.O.R., M.S.R.O.R.] - The court discussed the claim of adverse possession in a land dispute related to sea-shore land and analyzed the evidence presented in the C.S. R.O.R. and M.S.R.O.R. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove adverse possession and upheld the lower court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, and permanent injunction over a sea-shore land. The plaintiff claimed that the land was reclaimed by his great grandfather with the consent of the ex-landlord and that he had acquired occupancy rights through adverse possession. The defendants denied the plaintiff's claims and argued that the land was rightfully recorded in the name of the Government.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove adverse possession and occupancy rights over the sea-shore land. The court upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the suit based on the lack of evidence supporting the plaintiff's claims.
Issues: (1) Is the suit maintainable? (2) Is there any cause of action to file the suit? (3) Is the suit barred by law of limitation? (4) Is the suit land prohibitory land as per law? (5) Has the plaintiff acquired tenancy and occupancy right over the suit land? (6) Has the plaintiff perfected his right, title and interest over the suit land by way of adverse possession? (7) Whether the entries made in M.S.R.O.R. of the suit land vide Khata no.809 are wrong and need be corrected?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff's failure to provide evidence from the C.S. R.O.R. and M.S.R.O.R. to support the claim of adverse possession led to the dismissal of the suit. The court emphasized the importance of proving adverse possession in land disputes and found no merit in the plaintiff's arguments.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as it did not involve any substantial question of law.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Rath, J.
The plaintiff is the appellant against a confirming judgment in a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction.
2. The dispute pertains to area admeasuring Ac.10.10 decimals appertaining to M.S. Khata No.809, Plot Nos.2645, 2646 and 2647 of mouza-Radhanathpur, P.S.-Basudevpur in the district of Bhadrak. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit land is a part and parcel of the unserved area of the sea-shore. Kisam of the suit land was Anabadi. His great grandfather, Kartika Chandra Mandal, had reclaimed the land with the consent of Radhakanta Pardhi, ex-landlord, on 2.3.1945. The ex-landlord and one Muktikanta Pardhi had executed an Amalanama Patra in favour of his great grandfather. The ex-landlord had not made any application to the Collector for ejectment of his great grandfather within four years from the date of reclamation, which implies that the ex-landlord had given his consent for reclamation of the suit land. His great grandfather had acquired occupancy right over the same. Prior to execution of Amalanama Patra, his great grandfather was in possession of the suit land as a tenant for more than ten years. An agricultural lease was granted to him since 13.5.1937 by a Kabuliat. The ex-landlord had granted hat patta to his great grandfather on 26.12.1949. The name of his great grandfather had been recorded in the zamabandi register. The further case of the plaintiff is that Kartika Chandra Mandal died leaving behind his three sons, namely, Gora Chand, Rai Chand and Shyam Chand. They are all dead. Barendra is the son of Rai Chand, who died in June, 2001. The plaintiff being the successor of Barendra is in possession of the suit land. There was an oral partition between the sons of Kartika Chandra Mandal. Gora Chand and Shyam Chand alienated their 1/3rd interest each to Barendra and as such he became the absolute owner of the suit land. The State of Orissa had also received rent from the plaintiff. The major settlement record of right was not prepared correctly. The suit land was recorded as Abadajogya Anabadi in the name of the Government of Orissa. Basing on the recording in the M.S.R.O.R., the defendants had threatened to dispossess him from the suit land. With this factual scenario, the suit was filed seeking the reliefs as mentioned supra.
3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Apart from challenging the maintainability of the suit, the defendants took the plea that the description of the suit land is vague and indefinite. The documents said to have been granted by the ex-landlord are false and fabricated. The suit land has been rightly recorded in the name of Government both in the C.S. and M.S.R.O.R. The ex-landlord had no right to lease out the same in favour of any person. The specific case of the defendants is that the suit land is the sea-shore land and as such it has got public utility and prohibitory in nature. The plaintiff has not acquired any tenancy or occupancy right over the land in question.
4. On the interse pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck seven issues. They are:
“(1) Is the suit maintainable ?
(2) Is there any cause of action to file the suit ?
(3) Is the suit barred by law of limitation ?
(4) Is the suit land prohibitory land as per law ?
(5) Has the plaintiff acquired tenancy and occupancy right over the suit land ?
(6) Has the plaintiff perfected his right, title and interest over the suit land by way of adverse possession ?
(7) Whether the entries made in M.S.R.O.R. of the suit land vide Khata no.809 are wrong and need be corrected ?”
5. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff had examined three witnesses and on his behalf six documents had been exhibited. Neither any witness was examined by the defendants nor any document had been exhibited.
6. Learned trial court came to hold that M.S.R.O.R. stands in the name of the State Go
