An Assistant Settlement Officer was authorized to settle land under the Approved lease principles communicated in letters from the Government to the Board of Revenue, even if not authorized under specific statutes.

JUDGMENT :

L. Rath, J. - This is an appeal against a confirming judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Rourkela in a suit instituted for declaration of title, confirmation of possession or in alternative for recovery of possession in respect of Ac.4.19 decimals of land.

2. Briefly stated, the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1 instituted the suit making the averment that he belongs to the aboriginal tribe of Oram community and had no land sufficient for agricultural purposes and as such he had reclaimed the suit land which was originally Government Anabadi land and after reclaiming had started cultivating the same. During the major settlement operations an encroachment case was stated against the Respondent No. 1 since he was in possession of the suit land. He appeared before the settlement authorities and in that encroachment case the land was settled with him on raiyati status, on his paying the full demand. Thereafter draft R.O.R. was granted in his favour. Final R.O.R. published with effect from 1-4-1976 also shows him recorded as the Raiyat in respect of the suit land. As the Defendants i.e., Respondents 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 and the father of Respondent No. 7 as also the Respondent No. 2 illegally trespassed over the suit land on or about 15th of March, 1974 and were laying false claims with the settlement authorities which cast cloud over the right, title and interest of the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1, he was obliged to file the suit for the reliefs as above. The suit was contested by the Defendants by filing a joint written statement contending that the Respondent No. 1 had no insufficient land for agricultural purposes and that he had not reclaimed or cultivated the suit land and had also not possessed the suit land, It was the case of the Defendants that the Plaintiff had left the suit village since the time of his marriage and was living in his father-in-law's house at another village and had joined service in the H.S.L., Rourkela and that only in 1976 after parcha was received by the Plaintiff be raised a hut in the suit village and laid a false claim over the suit land.

The Defendants also stated that the suit land was wrongly recorded in the name of Alpesh Gram which was corrected on the basis of objection raised by the Defendants and the Defendants had been given the understanding by the settlement authorities that they would initiate encroachment proceedings against the Defendants. But the Plaintiff behind the back of the Defendants influenced the settlement authorities and managed to initiate encroachment proceedings against him and by giving fine etc., got his name recorded and obtained the draft R.O.R. Though his name was so recorded, yet he was not in possession of the same or any part or parcel of the suit land. After coming to know that the draft R.O.R. was issued in the name of the Plaintiff, the Defendants objected before the settlement authorities on 4-4-1966 and even thereafter. But however such authorities without considering the matter in its proper perspective and without referring to past records illegally and without any basis published the final R.O.R. in the name of the Plaintiff and entered in the remarks column the names of Defendants 1 and 2 and deceased Nicholas Oram as being forcible occupants. The Defendants also claimed to be all along in cultivating possession and enjoyment of the suit land since 1954.

3. On a detailed consideration of the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned trial court came to the finding that the Respondent No. 1 had right, title and interest over the suit land and was in possession of the suit land till only 3 to 4 years prior to the suit, and hence decreed the suit directing the Defendants 1, 2 and 4 (Appellant No. 1 father of Appellant No. 7 and Respondent No. 3) to deliver possession of the suit land to the Plaintiff. In appeal the learned Subordinate Judge, Rourkela also confirmed the finding that the Plaintiff was in possession of the land in question and that the Defendan