The main legal point established is that the civil court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the question of title despite the bar in Sec.16 of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the principles and burden of proof related to adverse possession.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. A.K. Rath, J.

1. Plaintiff is the appellant against a confirming judgment. The suit was for declaration of right, title and interest, orders passed by the Tahasildar, Pallahara as well as Sub-Divisional Officer, Pallahara in a proceeding under Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act are illegal and eviction of defendant nos.1 to 25.

2. The dispute pertains to Ac.2.00 dec. of land appertaining to plot no.1816/4 of mouza-Pallahara. The case of the plaintiff is that he is a landless person. To eke out his livelihood, he reclaimed the Government land and made it fit for cultivation. While the matter stood thus, the Tahasildar, Pallahara, defendant no.28, initiated Encroachment Case No.9/78 for eviction. The Revenue Inspector submitted report stating therein that the land was unobjectionable. The plaintiff was in possession of the same. Rent was assessed at Rs.30/-. He paid the same. Thereafter he filed Encroachment Appeal No.8/83 before the S.D.O., Pallahara, defendant no.27, which was dismissed. It was further pleaded that his son was an employee in the office of the S.D.O., Pallahara. He was not pulling on well with the latter, for which his appeal was dismissed. He is in possession of the land. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

3. Initially, the defendant nos.26 to 28, State of Orissa and its functionaries were not parties. But subsequently, they were impleaded. Defendant no.26 filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The specific case of the defendant no.26 is that the suit land is a Government land. The same situates in Pallahara town. There is a bushy forest growthed over the disputed land. The suit land is not cultivable. The kissam of the land is Jungle. The same was objectionable. Since the plaintiff was in unauthorised possession of the land, Encroachment Case No.9 of 1978 was initiated against him. The R.I. submitted a report stating that the land was full of bushes. Penalty of Rs.30/- was imposed on the plaintiff for encroachment. Order of eviction was passed. The case was disposed of after affording opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff. He filed encroachment appeal before the S.D.O., Pallahara, which met the same fate. Plaintiff had no right, title and interest over the suit land. Defendant nos.1 to 25 supported the stand of the defendant no.26.

4. On the interse pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck eight issues. Plaintiff adduced evidence, both oral and documentary. No evidence was adduced by the defendants. Learned trial court came to hold that in view of the bar contained in Sec.16 of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act (hereinafter referred to as “OPLE Act”), the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Though it is stated that the orders of encroachment passed by the Tahasildar as well as the appellate authority are bad in law, but the plaintiff failed to prove that there was any procedural defect. Held so, it dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Dhenkanal, which was subsequently transferred to the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Talcher and renumbered as T.A. No.12 of 1987/2 of 1990. Learned lower appellate court framed an additional issue, “If the plaintiff has perfected his title over the suit land by adverse possession ?” and remitted the matter back to the learned trial court to render a finding. In support of the case, parties adduced evidence. Learned trial court came to hold that plaintiff has perfected title by way of adverse possession. Thereafter, learned lower appellate court took up the appeal. It held that plaintiff had paid penalty of Rs.30/- in the encroachment case. He admitted that he had encroached upon the suit land in the year 1978. The plaintiff has not perfected title by way of adverse possession. It concurred with the finding of the learned trial court with regard to jurisdict