The judgment establishes the principle that fabricated evidence, such as rent receipts, can lead to the dismissal of a claim of occupancy right and adverse possession.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. A.K. Rath, J.

01. This appeal is by the plaintiff.

02. The case of the plaintiff is that he is a Bengali, migrated from Medinapur, West Bengal with his family and settled at Jamboo since 1949 along with many other persons with the verbal permission of the employees of Kujanga estate. After the introduction of Act-1 of 1948, the Kujanga estate authority could not lease out the suit land to the plaintiff and others. Pursuant to the report dated 16.04.1949 of the Collector, Cuttack, enquiry by the Asst. Conservator of Estate dated 17.1.50 and final report of the Collector, Cuttack, the Govt. released Ac.200.00 land for reclamation and lease out the same by ex-intermediary. Thereafter, the ex-intermediary on consideration of the application of the plaintiff in Lease Case No.125 of 1355-56 leased out the suit land in his favour for cultivation on payment of Rs.16/13/- and pathakar rent Rs.1/1/3 per year. The suit land was demarcated by an Amin. The plaintiff is in peaceful possession of the same and used to pay rent and obtain rent receipts. After vesting, the rent roll was submitted by the ex-intermediary to the State in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1952. Since 1952 till date the Revenue Inspector received rent. The settlement authority recorded the name of the plaintiff in yadast. A certificate case was filed by the Tahasildar, Marshaghai demanding penalty in encroachment case. As the suit land was attached in the said case, he was compelled to pay the outstanding dues. After payment, he came to know about the Encroachment Case No.1415 of 68-69 was initiated and penalty was assessed. For realization of the outstanding dues, the Certificate Case No.262 of 1985 was started. He has acquired occupancy right over the suit land. He is a settled raiyat of the village. Thus the encroachment proceeding and certificate case are null and void. With this factual scenario, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration to confirm the occupancy right and for a direction to the defendant no.3 to adjust the dues collected from him towards rent after fixing the rent.

03. The defendant no.2 and 3 filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants is that after Orissa Estate Abolition Act came into force the estate vested in 1952. No ekpadia was submitted by the ex-landlord in favour of the plaintiff. In the ROR published in the year 1968, the suit land was recorded as Rakhita Anabadi under khata no.169. Thereafter, Encroachment Case No.1415/68-69 was initiated against the plaintiff. The plaintiff admitted the encroachment. He paid penalty of Rs. 457.84./- The plaintiff has no title over the suit land.

04. On the interse pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck seven issues. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff had examined seven witnesses and on his behalf twelve documents had been exhibited. No evidence was adduced by the defendants.

05. Learned trial court on scrutiny of the rent receipts, vide Ext.4 and 4(a), came to hold that the date of payment of the rent is not clear. The rent was either paid on 2.5.48 or 2.5.58. The rent receipts were printed on 14.12.51. Thus it was impossible to grant a receipt for the rent of the year 1948. The estate vested in the State much prior to 1952. Thus no rent could be paid to the ex-landlord on 2.5.58. With regard to receipts vide Ext.4(a), it held that the date of payment of rent has been mentioned as 21.3.50 whereas the receipt was printed on 14.12.51. It held that receipts are not genuine and the same are fabricated for the purpose of the case. The plaintiff failed to prove the possession of the suit land. In Encroachment Case No.1415 of 1968-69, he has paid penalty vide Ext.8. The plaintiff was not an occupancy raiyat. Held so, learned trial court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff unsuccessfully challenged the judgment and decree of the learned trial court before the learned Addl. District Judge, Kendrapara in T.A. No.1 of 19