The judgment emphasizes the importance of compliance with procedural requirements, the jurisdiction of administrative authorities under specific acts, and the legal principles related to lease registration and the public trust doctrine.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. RATH, J.

1. Plaintiff is the appellant against a confirming judgment. The suit was for declaration of title over the suit property, delivery of possession and permanent injunction.

2. The case of the plaintiff was that the ex-intermediary granted a permanent lease deed on 2.8.1941 in his favour in respect of the suit land. In the sabik settlement, the suit land was recorded as river. But subsequently by process of alluvium, the land became a patha and fit for cultivation. He reclaimed the same and made it fit for cultivation. He planted trees over the same. He used to raise crops. The ex-intermediary submitted ekpadia in his favour after vesting. Though he had applied for settlement of the land to the Tahasildar, but no order was passed. He is in possession of the suit land peacefully, continuously and with the hostile animus to the defendants for near about 46 years and, as such, perfected title by way of adverse possession. In the current settlement, the land has been recorded as Abadayogya Anabadi. Due to his ignorance, he could not challenge the same before the Commissioner, Land Records and Settlement. While the matter stood thus, the Tahasildar initiated Encroachment Case Nos. 61 of 67-68 and 8 of 67-68 against him, but the same were dropped. Again the Tahasildar initiated an Encroachment Case No. 24 of 1988 against him. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the relief mentioned supra.

3. The defendants entered contest and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants was that mandatory provision under Section 80 C.P.C. had not been complied with. The suit was hit under Section 16 of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act (OPLE Act). No permanent lease deed was granted by the ex-intermediary in favour of the plaintiff on 2.8.1941. The specific case of the defendants was that the land vested in the State free from all encumbrances. The plaintiff had no right, title and interest over the same. Since the plaintiff had encroached upon the suit land, encroachment cases were initiated against him. Order of eviction was passed on 16.8.1988. The plaintiff was evicted on 11.10.1988. In the settlement, the suit land has been recorded as Abadayogya Anabadi. The suit land is river.

4. Learned trial court dismissed the suit holding, inter-alia, that the plaintiff had no right, title and interest over the suit land. The unsuccessful plaintiff challenged the same before the learned IInd Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Cuttack in Title Appeal No. 20 of 1997, which was eventually dismissed. It is apt to state here that during pendency of this appeal, the sole appellant died, whereafter his legal heirs have been substituted.

5. The Second Appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in ground nos.1 and 3 of the appeal memo. The same are:

“1. Whether in view of the fact that application under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed on 18.8.1998 and the same was ordered to be put up on 22.8.1998 but no order was passed on 22.8.98 and the suit was proceeded and in view of such state of affairs if proceeding of the suit without disposal of the application under Section 80(2) of C.P.C. was legal and justified and if in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned trial court is to be directed to dispose of the said application and then proceed with the suit.

3. Whether in view of the fact that the plaint averments to the effect that Encroachment Case No. 8 of 67-68 and 61 of 67-68 was stated against the plaintiff and had been dropped is not cotroverted by the defendants and another encroachment case no. 24 of 88 has been stated against the plaintiffs has not been controverted by the defendants if the defendants shall be deemed to have admitted the same as provided under Order 8, Rule 5 of C.P.C.”

6. Mr. Bishnu Charan Swain, learned Advocate on behalf of Mr. P. Kar, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants s