The main legal point established in the judgment is that adverse possession requires peaceful, open, and continuous possession with hostile animus, and the absence of permissive possession. The court also emphasized the significance of proving the absence of hostile animus and highlighted the plaintiffs' participation in the auction of the tank as evidence of the transfer to the Grama Panchayat.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

Plaintiffs are the appellants against a confirming judgment in a suit for declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession and permanent injunction.

2. An area of Ac.5.19 dec. of land pertaining to Hal Khata No.81, Hal Plot Nos.523, 524 of Mouza-Tangarani in the district of Keonjhar is the subject matter of dispute.

3. The case of the plaintiffs was that Ghasiram Mohanta, the fore-father of the plaintiffs, excavated a tank over the suit land in the year 1900 with the knowledge of the then Ruler of Keonjhar State to irrigate his adjoining lands. After death of Ghasiram, his sons were in possession of the tank. Thereafter, their legal heirs were in possession of the tank. They used to rear fish and use its water. They have renovated the tank. Thereafter, the plaintiffs are in possession of the tank peacefully, continuously and with the hostile animus to the defendants for more than the statutory period and as such perfected their title over the tank by way of adverse possession. Defendant no.2, Sarpanch of Bodapalasa Grama Panchayat has no title over the tank. He initiated a proceeding under Section 145 of Cr.P.C. By order dated 02.02.1988, the Executive Magistrate prohibited the parties to possess the tank until the right of the parties is decided in due course of law. The Asst. Director of Fisheries, Keonjhar has been appointed as receiver. With the factual scenario, the plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra.

4. The defendant no.1 was set ex parte. Defendant no.2 filed written statement pleading inter alia that tank originally belongs to State of Orissa. The same had been transferred to Bodapalasa Grama Panchanyat ("G.P." in short). The G.P. was doing pisciculture. Plaintiffs have no semblance of right, title and interest over the same.

5. Steaming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck seven issues. Both the parties led evidence, oral and documentary. Learned trial court dismissed the suit holding that the local people have interest over the tank. They are not parties to the suit. The suit suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties. The tank belongs to State. Plaintiffs have no title over the same. They have not perfected title by way of adverse possession. The unsuccessful plaintiffs filed T.A. No.14 of 1991 before the learned District Judge, Keonjhar, which was eventually dismissed.

6. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law.

(1) Whether the finding of adverse possession is legal or not?

(2) Whether the conclusion of the courts below regarding transfer vis-a-vis the provisions of the Orissa Vesting of Properties (in Gram Sasans) Act, 1964 is legal or not?

7. Heard Mr.Ramakanta Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, learned ASC for the State.

8. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants argued in vehemence that the tank was never transferred to the G.P. under the Orissa Vesting of Properties (in Grama Sasans) Act, 1964. Learned courts below committed manifest illegality in placing reliance on Ext.J, which is not a deed of transfer.

9. Per contra, Mr.Mishra, learned ASC submitted that plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of title by way of adverse possession. The initial possession of the plaintiffs over the tank was permissive. Surendra and Chandrasekhar had participated in the auction of the tank. Thus, the element of hostile animus is absent. Both the courts have concurrently held that plaintiffs had not perfected title by way of adverse possession.

10. Taking a cue from the decision of the apex Court in the case of Gurdwara Sahib Vrs. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala and another, (2014) 1 SCC 669, this Court in the case of Nabin Chandra Mohanta (since dead) through L.Rs. Vrs. State of Orissa and others, (R.S.A. No.396 of 2004, dismissed on 22.02.2019) held -

"10. In Gurdwara Sahib, the plaintiff-appellant filed the suit for decree of declaration to the effect th