The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proving peaceful, open, continuous, and hostile possession to establish adverse possession, as well as the impact of representations to the Government on the element of hostile animus.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

Plaintiff is in appeal against a confirming judgment of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

2. Case of the plaintiff is that the suit land belongs to the State Government. She had constructed a house over the same. She is in possession of the suit land since 31 years and as such, perfected title by way of adverse possession. Her name was recorded in the last settlement. Defendant no.4 intended to occupy the land with the assistance of the staff of defendant nos.1 to 3. Defendants threatened to demolish the construction made by her. She made several representations to the Government to allot the suit land in her favour.

3. Defendants 1 to 3 filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. According to them, neither the plaintiff nor her husband was in possession of the suit plot No.D-14 situated at Bapuji Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Suit plot no.669 corresponds to not final plot no.675. Suit plot no.D-14 is not a part of plot no.669. In the year 1976, plot no.D-14 was leased out to one Bharat Behera. One Ananta Trivedi was in unauthorised possession. Delivery of possession of the said plot could not be made to Bharat. Thus O.P.P. Proceeding No.145/76 was initiated against Ananta. Order of eviction was passed on 22.11.1984. The Government leased out the suit plot to defendant no.4, who is the legal heirs of Bharat by means of registered lease deed and delivered possession of the same on 6.4.1985. Defendant no.4 is in possession of the suit plot no.D-14. He had made a construction over the same. Neither the plaintiff nor her husband was in possession of the suit plot. As defendant no.4 is in possession of plot no.D-14 corresponding to Hal not final Plot No.675, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed five issues. Parties led evidence. Learned trial court dismissed the suit with the finding that G.A Plot No.14-D does not correspond to Hal Plot No.669. Plaintiff had made several representations to the Government to allow the land in her favour. The plaintiff admits the title of the Government. There is no hostile animus. The plaintiff has no title over the suit land. Unsuccessful plaintiff filed Title Appeal No.32 of 1989 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhubaneswar, which was eventually dismissed.

5. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in Ground No.1(A), (B) and (D) of the appeal memo. The same are:–

“A. If the courts below are correct in deciding the suit with reference to the plot nos. assigned by the G.A Department at the time of preparing the Map (Drawing) for purpose of allotment to different lessees, without taking into consideration settlement Plot Nos. which provide the only authentic identification of land in dispute.

B. When the plaintiff has specifically claimed title to settlement plot no.669, if the courts below are correct in dismissing the suit merely because the plaintiff has mentioned G.A drawing Plot No.14/D which may be a mistake.

D. When the plaintiff has claimed title to settlement Plot No.669 and has given its boundary, if the courts below are correct in taking into consideration the boundary of G.A Plot No.14-D to discredit the plaintiff.”

6. Heard Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3. None appeared for respondent no.4.

7. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned courts below committed a mistake in holding that G.A Plot No.14-D does not correspond to Hal Plot No.669 without taking into consideration the settlement plot numbers, which provide the only authentic identification of land in dispute. The plaintiff has claimed title over settlement plot no.669. The court below fell into patent error in dismissing the suit holding that the plaintiff has mentioned G.A Plot