Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
A.K. RATH, J.
State of Orissa & another - Appellants
Versus
Sri Sri Radha Govinda Swami – Respondent
SA No.121 of 1993
Decided on : 14-07-2017
Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act - Adverse Possession - Sec. 8-A - Sec. 3(a-1) - [Adverse Possession] - [Land Encroachment] - [Sec. 8-A, Sec. 3(a-1)] - The court discussed the plaintiff's claim of adverse possession over the suit land and the applicability of Sec. 8-A and Sec. 3(a-1) of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act. It highlighted the legal principles of adverse possession and the definition of a 'landless person' under the Act, emphasizing that a juristic person like a deity cannot be considered a 'landless person'. The court also cited relevant case laws to support its interpretation of the legal provisions and concluded that the plaintiff's claim of adverse possession was not valid, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a deity, claimed adverse possession over a piece of land and sought declaration of title, challenging orders passed by the Revenue Authorities under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act. The defendants denied the plaintiff's assertions, stating that the land was communal poromboke and the plaintiff's possession was illegal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's claim of adverse possession was not valid, as the land was communal poromboke and the plaintiff's possession was illegal. It also held that the lower appellate court had no jurisdiction to direct the OPLE authorities to settle the land under Sec. 8-A of the OPLE Act. The suit for declaration of title was dismissed, and the impugned judgment was set aside.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the plaintiff's claim of adverse possession, the applicability of Sec. 8-A and Sec. 3(a-1) of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, and the jurisdiction of the lower appellate court to direct the OPLE authorities to settle the land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a juristic person like a deity cannot be considered a 'landless person' under Sec. 3(a-1) of the OPLE Act. It also emphasized the requirements of adverse possession and the need to prove peaceful, open, and continuous possession. Additionally, it clarified that the civil court cannot direct the OPLE authorities for settlement under Sec. 8-A of the OPLE Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment was set aside, and the suit was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Dr. A.K.Rath, J
This is a defendants’ appeal in a reversing judgment.
2. Respondent as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.7 of 1985 in the court of the learned Munsif, Chatrapur for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land, orders passed by the Revenue Authorities under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act (hereinafter referred to as “OPLE Act”) are not valid and binding and permanent injunction impleading the appellants as defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that Sri Sri Radha Govinda Swamy Bije, Biripur is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of Ac.1.25 dec. of land appertaining to Survey No.232/2 of village Alliabad since 40 years. The suit land was lying fallow shrouded with bushes and trees. The plaintiff reclaimed the suit land and made the same arable. The land has been erroneously recorded as “Rasta Paramboke” in the revenue records. The usufructs of the suit land are utilised for Seba Puja and Niti Kranti of the deity. The deity is in peaceful and continuous possession over the suit land with hostile animus to the defendants for more than the statutory period and as such, perfected title by way of adverse possession. The proceeding under the OPLE Act was initiated against it. The deity was in continuous possession and enjoyment over the suit land and a landless person owning less than one acre of land and no source of income. The Tahasildar, Chatrapur visited the spot, made an enquiry and recommended for declassification of the suit land from ‘Rasta’ to “Abada Jogya Anabadi” to the defendants on 7.6.1982 in RLC No.50 of 1982. Despite the same in RLC No.50 of 1982 the Tahasildar directed the R.I on 8.11.1983 to seize the standing crops and put the same into auction. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed OPLE Appeal No.20 of 1983 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatrapur. The same having been dismissed, it filed revision before the Additional District Magistrate, Chatrapur. The revision met with same fate and also dismissed. The revisional authority directed the Tahasildar to evict the plaintiff from the suit land. The orders passed by the OPLE Authorities are illegal. Pursuant to the orders passed by the A.D.M., Chatrapur, the R.I served a notice of eviction on 2.5.1985 on the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that the plaintiff used to pay land assessment charges to the Government from time to time. The occupation of the plaintiff over the suit land is unobjectionable. The occupation relates back to the year 1945 in the ROR. There is no objection from the villagers for occupation of the suit land by the deity. Since the local inspector threatened the plaintiff to evict from the suit land, the suit was filed after issuing notice seeking relief supra.
3. The defendants filed a written statement denying assertions made in the plaint. According to the defendants, the land stood recorded as “Rasta Paramboke” in the ROR. The plaintiff illegally encroached upon the suit land, cultivated the same and reduced the communal utility illegally without permission of the State. The plaintiff has not acquired title by way of adverse possession. The action taken by the defendants for eviction of the plaintiff from the suit land and seizure of paddy crop is legal and valid. The order passed by the previous Tahasildar had not been acted upon either by the defendant no.2 or appellate or revisional authority under the OPLE Act. The said order is illegal since the suit land is communal poromboke and could not be assigned. The plaintiff is in illegal possession over the suit land. The plaintiff used to pay taram assessment admitting title of the State over the suit land.
4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck as many as four issues. To prove the case, the plaintiff had examined two witnesses and on its behalf, five documents had been exhibited. No evidence was adduced by the defendants. Learned trial court came to hold that encroachment made by the plaintiff is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
