The ownership dispute over the river bed and the applicability of O.E.A. Act Sec.5 and Sec.8, along with the public trust doctrine, were central to the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

A.K.RATH, J.

Defendants are the appellants against a confirming judgment.

2. Plaintiffs-respondents 1 to 13 instituted the suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiffs was that the suit land originally belonged to Nakhatra Malini Dei, the ex-intermediary. Plaintiff no.1, Laxman Sahu (father of plaintiff nos.2 and 3 and husband of plaintiff no.4), Rama Chandra Sahu (father of plaintiff nos.5 and 6) and Muralidhar Pani (father of plaintiff nos.7 to 12 and husband of plaintiff no.13) were in cultivating possession of the suit schedule land as bhag tenants. They were paying bhag. While matter stood thus, the ex-intermediary leased out the suit land to them on 14.3.1943 on acceptance of salami. She executed an unregistered lease deed on 14.3.1943 in their favour and delivered possession. Since then the aforesaid persons jointly possessed the suit land. After vesting of the estate, plaintiff no.1, Laxman Sahu, Rama Chandra Sahu and Muralidhar Pani remained in possession of the suit land as occupancy tenants. They filed an application under Sec.8(1) of the O.E.A. Act before the Tahasildar, Jajpur for acceptance of rent, which was registered as Misc.Case No.77 of 1968. By order dated 31.10.1968, the Additional Tahasildar, Jajpur recognized the lessees and directed collection of rent from them. Thereafter, the lessees paid rent to the State Government as occupancy tenants. Since difficulty arose between the co-sharers, they applied to the Tahasildar on 18.2.1970 for division of the land. Pursuant to the order, an Amin went to the spot, measured the land and divided the same into four equal shares measuring A0.77 dec. each in presence of the local gentlemen. Accordingly, plots were allotted to the respective persons. After death of Laxman, Ram and Muralidhar, their legal heirs succeeded to the properties. The plaintiffs raised paddy crops on their respective land. The defendants who had no semblance of right, title and interest over the suit land threatened to dispossess them from the suit land. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit seeking the relief mentioned supra.

3. Defendants 1, 2 to 10, 12 to 19, 21 and defendant no.3 (ka) filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. According to them, on the confluence of the river Budha and Kharasrota, the disputed land was formed by way of char about 35 years back. The total extent of the disputed plot is Ac.21.20 dec. Out of the same, the char lands are about Ac.9.00 dec. Plot nos.689 and 706 originally belonged to Brahmananda Biswal. He was in possession of the char lands. The same was contiguous to his plots. Defendant no.1 purchased the said plots from Brahmananda. The extent of the char lands in possession of defendant no.1 is about Ac.2.00 dec.. Brahamananda and defendant no.1 reclaimed the same. They acquired occupancy rights over Ac.2.00 dec. of land out of Ac.9.00 dec. The rest Ac.7.00 dec. of land including the disputed land were reclaimed by the defendants and their predecessors. They converted it into the agricultural land. The defendants are settled raiyats of village. Some of them are landless persons and some of them have small extent of lands. The defendants have acquired occupancy rights. After abolition of zamindari, the defendants are in continuous possession of the land. They are in peaceful and continuous possession of the land to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, Rabindra Panda and others, the ex-intermediary and the State of Orissa. They raised crops. The plaintiffs created disturbances in their possession. The lease deeds and rent receipts are fraudulent one. The plaintiffs created one antedated document in collusion with the intermediary to defeat the claim of defendants.

4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed five issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their cases. Learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiffs have title over the suit land. They