The judgment establishes the requirements for adverse possession and interprets the application of Section 8(A) of the O.P.L.E. Act in land dispute cases.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. RATH, J.

This is a defendants’ appeal against reversing judgment.

2. The respondent as plaintiff instituted T.S.No.169 of 1984 in the court of the learned Munsif, Berhampur for declaration of title and certain other ancillary reliefs impleading the appellants as defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule land had been allotted to his father on 17.12.1946 under Grow More Food Scheme by the Tahasildar, Berhampur, defendant no.1. His father was in possession of the said land. He died in the year 1952. After him, his mother remained in possession of the suit land. While the matter stood thus, defendant no.1 initiated L.E.C.No.102 of 1972 under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act (in short “the O.P.L.E. Act”) against his mother. The defendant no.1 dropped the proceeding holding, inter alia, that the mother of the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land for more than thirty years; thus acquired title by way of adverse possession. The defendant no.1 directed to transfer the lease section on 6.5.1978. Thereafter his mother filed Mutation Case No.5798 of 1978 for mutation of the land, but no order was passed. While the matter stood thus, his mother died in the year 1980. Thereafter, he is in cultivating possession of the same. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the relief mentioned supra.

3. The defendants filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants is that the father of the plaintiff was permitted to cultivate Ac.1.61 dec. of land appertaining to Survey No. 771/1 of village Jagdalpur temporarily for a period of three years from fasli 1356 under Grow More Food Campaign. He had no authority to possess the land beyond the period of three years. The R.I. report reveals that he had not cultivated the land beyond the period for which he was permitted to cultivate under the Grow More Food Scheme. It is stated that mother of the plaintiff was in illegal possession of the land in 1961 for which L.E.C.No.182 of 1972 was initiated against her. She was not in possession for more than thirty years. She was asked to show cause. Possession of the land by the father of the plaintiff from 1946-47 to 1948-49 was permissive. The same was interrupted on 18.1.1962. No final order was passed in encroachment case. The plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit land. The plaintiff is not in possession of the land.

4. Steaming on the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court struck five issues. Both parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their case. On a threadbare analysis of the evidence on record and pleadings, the learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff has not perfected title by way of adverse possession. Held so, it dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed before the learned District Judge, Berhampur, which was subsequently transferred to the court of the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Berhampur and renumbered as Title Appeal No. 56/88 (T.A.No.32/86 GDC). The learned appellate court came to hold that Section 8(A) of the O.P.L.E. Act is of no assistance to the defendants. The Tahasildar dropped the proceedings stating that the mother of the plaintiff acquired title by way of adverse possession. Rent was collected from the mother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is in possession of the suit land for more than thirty years continuously, openly, without interruption and to the knowledge of all concerned and, as such, perfected title by way of adverse possession. Held so, it allowed the appeal.

5. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law enumerated in ground nos.1 (a) and (c) of the appeal memo. The same are:-

“(a) Whether in view of the pleadings of the plaintiff that his father had been inducted as a tenant by the Tahasildar under Grow More Food Scheme some times in the year 1946 and the plaintiff thereafter are continuing in the possession, the c