The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Orissa Tenancy Act, particularly regarding the acquisition of occupancy right and adverse possession.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. RATH, J.

The plaintiffs are the appellants against a confirming judgment.

2. Muralidhar Patra, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs, instituted T.S. No.328 of 1987 for declaration of occupancy right over the suit land in the court of the learned Munsif, Kendrapara. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit land was Anabadi land. It was lying fallow with thorny bushes and hills. The then Landlord and their employees allowed his father to reclaim and convert the land into cultivable land with mutual understanding to settle the same in favour of his father on occupancy basis for the purpose of agriculture. His father reclaimed the land, spent huge amount and made it fit for cultivation in the year 1940. He raised pagara and green fence all around it and made it a compact block. For raising of various crops, he constructed a farm house over the suit land and cowshed. He planted coconut trees over the said land in the year 1945. His father died in the year 1945. After his father he became the successor-in-interest. He constructed a building thereon. In the settlement, the Settlement Officer wrongly recorded the suit land as Abada Jogya Anabadi. The same is illegal and without jurisdiction. The plaintiff is not bound by it. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff is a settled raiyat of the village and, as such, he had acquired occupancy right over the land. For any reason and for want of written document, the right and title of the plaintiff is not upheld, then indefeasible title by way of adverse possession as a tenant had been acquired by efflux of time and by operation of law. He is in peaceful possession of the land since 1952 with hostile animus to the defendant. Since recording by the settlement authority caste a cloud on his title, he instituted the suit seeking reliefs mentioned supra after issuing notice under Section 80 C.P.C.

3. The defendants filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants is that the suit land is a Government land. The same was lying fallow. The plaintiff has illegally constructed the house and planted trees without permission of the Ex-landlord. The Ex-landlord has not submitted ekpaid in favour of the father of the plaintiff after abolition of ex-intermediary. The plaintiff had not put forth his claim before the settlement authority at any point of time. The land was rightly recorded as Abada Jogya Anabadi in the settlement. The plaintiff has no semblance of right, title and interest over the same.

4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court struck seven issues. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff had examined four witnesses and on his behalf, twelve documents had been exhibited. The learned trial court came to held that the suit land has been obtained by his father from the ex-landlord on the strength of temporary/permanent lease It is pleaded that his father had reclaimed the suit land with the permission of ex-landlord and his employees. There is no pleading with regard to the name of the ex-landlord from whom his father obtained the suit land. No scrap of paper had been filed on behalf of the plaintiff to support his contention with regard to re-claimation of the suit land. It further held that the plaintiff’s father is not the settled raiyat of the village, so the question that the plaintiff acquired the occupancy status being the sole successor-in-interest of his father in respect of the suit land, does not arise at all. As the plaintiff claims right of occupancy through his father by succession and his father was not the settled raiyat of the village and acquisition of right of occupancy over the same has no basis at all. Held so, the learned trial court dismissed the suit. The unsuccessful plaintiff challenged the judgment and decree before the learned Additional District Judge, Kendrapara in T.A.No.30 of 1992, which was eventually dismissed. It is apt to state here that during pendency of the firs