The main legal point established is that a claim of adverse possession and deemed tenancy can be inconsistent, and an order under the Orissa Public Premises Act does not necessarily operate as res judicata.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

This appeal at the plaintiff's instance assails the affirming judgment of the learned District Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar in RFA No.45 of 2002.

2. The dispute pertains to an area admeasuring Ac.0.180 dec. appertaining to Khata No.619, Plot No.457/1892 of Mouza Chandrasekharpur. The kissam of the land is Gochar. The suit land situates in the capital city of Bhubaneswar.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that originally the suit land belonged to the ex-intermediary of Kanika. On 6.9.1945, the ex-intermediary inducted his father Banambar Rout as a tenant and issued Hat patta in his favour. The estate vested in the State in the year 1953 after coming into operation of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act (in short, "the OEA Act"). His father possessed the land and raised vegetables therein. Consequent upon vesting of the estate in the State, his father became a tenant under the State. He and his father had built up a residential house over the suit property. His father died in the year 1974. He is residing in the house and running a hotel therein. He is in possession of the suit land since the time of his father peacefully, continuously and with hostile animus to the State for more than thirty years. In the remarks column of the hal settlement record-of-right, his possession has been reflected. While matter stood thus, on 6.9.1989 the agents of the defendants forcibly entered into the suit land and threatened to dispossess him. He approached this Court in OJC No.2922 of 1989. This Court directed that he shall not be evicted without complying the requirement of law. Thereafter, he filed T.S. No.213 of 1989 for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Defendant filed a written statement pleading, inter alia, that a case under the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act had been initiated against him. On 5.4.1990, the officials of defendant no.5 stacked the materials over the suit land and stated that the suit land along with other lands had been allotted to it on 9.4.1990 by the Government in General Administration Department. During pendency of the suit, defendant no.3 initiated OPP Case No.69/90 for eviction. In the said case, amin had measured the land and submitted a report that a portion of the wall of his house is standing over the Government land. Taking advantage of his absence, defendant no.5 had constructed two numbers of HIG house. He made a protest; whereafter the construction was stopped. On 3.7.1993, defendant nos.3 and 5 with the help of police forcibly entered into the suit land. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, permanent and mandatory injunction.

4. Defendant no.3 filed a written statement pleading, inter alia, that neither the father of the plaintiff, nor the plaintiff had right, title and interest over the suit land. Raja of Kanika had not settled the land in favour of plaintiff's father. Hat Patta, Ext.1, is a forged document. The suit land vested in the State after abolition of the intermediary estate. The suit land had been recorded in the name of the Government in 1973 ROR. Kissam of the land is Gochar.

5. Defendant no.5 filed a written statement taking a similar stand to that of defendant no.3. It is pleaded that the suit land is communal land. The suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the villagers of Chandrasekharpur, who are necessary parties.

6. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck seven issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary. On an anatomy of pleadings and evidence, learned trial court held that the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit land. Though no specific issue on adverse possession was framed, it dealt with the same and rendered a finding that the plaintiff had not perfected title by way of adverse possession. Held so, it dismissed the suit. Unsuccessful plaintiff filed RFA No.45 of 2002 before the learned Dis