Procedural irregularities in the assignment of village poromboke land do not invalidate the grant, and the order of assignment, not the patta, confers title.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. Misra, J. - The suit is for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The disputed land consists of one cent of land in Survey No. 503 in village Boragan within Aska Taluk. Plaintiff's case is that the disputed land belonged to the Government and was assigned to her husband who executed a registered sale deed (Ex. 2) on 13.8.1955 in her favour. The Defendants, who are Bauries of the village, threatened dispossession and hence the suit. The defence case is that the Plaintiff husband encroached upon the suit-site which is a village poromboke. On the objection of the Defendants, Plaintiff's husband was found to have mad the encroachment and an order of eviction was passed. No patta has been granted to the Plaintiff's husband and neither the Plaintiff nor her husband was ever in possession. The learned Munsif found that the Plaintiff had a good title. On a finding that she had been dispossessed, he passed a decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The learned Subordinate Judge, in appeal, held that the Plaintiff failed to establish a valid title; and even though she proved her possession, it fell short of the statutory period of 12 years and she had acquired no title by prescription. He accordingly dismissed the Plaintiff's suit. Against the Appellate decree the Plaintiff has filed the second appeal.

2. Mr. Misra advanced the following contentions : (i) the learned Sub- Judge's finding that the assignment made in favour of the Plaintiff's husband was done without following Board's Standing Order No. 21, was contrary to the materials on record; (ii) even assuming that the revenue authorities committed procedural irregularities in the matter of making assignment, the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to declare the grant as invalid; and (iii) the finding of the learned Sub-Judge that the order of assignment is invalid unless it is followed by issue of a Patta, is contrary to law.

Each of these contentions requires careful examination.

3. The first contention necessitates an enumeration of the admitted facts of the case. Plaintiff's husband encroached upon the disputed site which is a village poromboke in the year 1935 (Village Plan Ex. A dated 1-9-1935). He applied for the settlement of the and by an application Ex. B dated 15.8.1918. The Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O.), Ghumsur, inspected the spot on 28-1-1949. In his inspection note (Ex. C), he concluded that there was no sufficient space for the free movement of the Bauries of the street. He recommended removal of the encroachment. The Collector of Ganjam passed an order (Ex. D) dated 19-2-1949 directing eviction. On 19-5-1950 Plaintiff's husband moved the revenue authorities by a petition (Ex. 3) for the settlement of the land. On this there was again an inspection by the R.D.O. and the order of assignment (Ex. 1) was passed on 8-4-1952 settling the land with the Plaintiff's husband. This order was communicated to him by the Tahasildar, Aska, as per Ex. 4 on 14-1-1952. No patta has, however, been issued in pursuance of the order of assignment.

Though there was an order of assignment settling the disputed land with the Plaintiff's husband by a competent revenue authority, whose jurisdiction has not been questioned, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the order of assignment conferred no title on the ground that there were certain procedural irregularities before the final order was passed and that unless Patta was issued, Plaintiff's husband did not acquire any title. In his conclusion he committed a number of errors of record. Ex. 3 is the application dated 19-5-1950 filed by the Plaintiff's husband praying for settlement of the land. On the application itself, the R.D.O. passed the following order:

Tahasildar-Take steps to assign the area to the Applicant which I did not declare as objectionable. The learned Subordinate Judge misconstrued this order and wrongly came to the conclusion that the R.D.O. passed the final order of assignment o