Back
2019 Supreme(Ori) 237
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
A.K. Rath, J.
Sureswari Biswasroy – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent
Regular Second Appeal No. 56 of 2005
Decided On : 25-02-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Lalit Kumar Maharana, Swayambhu Mishra.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the claim of adverse possession is inconsistent with the claim of title by the plaintiff's vendor. The court emphasized the legal requirements for adverse possession, including the need for physical/actual, exclusive, open, uninterrupted, notorious, and hostile possession for a period exceeding twelve years.
Headnote:
Adverse Possession - Land Dispute - Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act - [Adverse Possession] - [Land Dispute] - [Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act] - The court discussed the claim of adverse possession and the legal principles governing adverse possession. It highlighted the contradictory nature of claiming title and adverse possession over the property. The court referred to the legal requirements for adverse possession, emphasizing the need for physical/actual, exclusive, open, uninterrupted, notorious, and hostile possession for a period exceeding twelve years. The court also emphasized that long and continuous possession alone would not constitute adverse possession if it was permissive or without animus possidendi. The judgment concluded that the plaintiff had not perfected title by way of adverse possession, as the claim of adverse possession was found to be inconsistent with the claim of title by the plaintiff's vendor.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of a land through a registered sale deed and asserted adverse possession. The defendant contested the claim, stating that the plaintiff's vendor was in unauthorized possession of the land and that the plaintiff had not perfected title by way of adverse possession. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the appellate court affirmed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to prove her right, title, and interest and possession over the suit land. It also held that the plaintiff had not perfected title by way of adverse possession. The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the plaintiff's claim of adverse possession was inconsistent with the claim of title by her vendor.
Issues: The issues included the plaintiff's claim of ownership, adverse possession, and the validity of the recorded owner's title over the suit land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the contradictory nature of claiming title and adverse possession over the property. It referred to the legal requirements for adverse possession, highlighting the need for physical/actual, exclusive, open, uninterrupted, notorious, and hostile possession for a period exceeding twelve years. The court also emphasized that long and continuous possession alone would not constitute adverse possession if it was permissive or without animus possidendi.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the court held that the plaintiff had not perfected title by way of adverse possession. The substantial questions of law were answered accordingly, and the appeal was deemed to be without merit.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Rath, J.
1. This appeal at the plaintiff's instance assails the affirming judgment of the Additional District Judge, Gajapati, Parlakhemundi in T.A. No. 12 of 1998.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit land is her rayati land, not Government land. She purchased the land from one Lalit Madhab Deo and others by means of a registered sale deed dated 15.5.1972 for a valid consideration. Possession was duly delivered to her. She is in possession of the land since the date of purchase. She had raised crops. The suit land is classified as "Rayati Billa" meaning thereby paddy yielding agricultural and cultivable lands as per the sabik ROR. The same is not Anabadi land. In the last settlement operation, she could not take steps, for which, the suit land was classified as Anabadi in the ROR. The ROR was wrongly published, wherein her vendor's name had been reflected in the remarks column. She filed mutation case. But the fate of the case is not known. She is in possession of the land peacefully, continuously and with the hostile animus of the defendant and as such perfected title by way of adverse possession. She has right, title and interest and possession over the suit land. The wrong entry in the ROR created a cloud of suspicion. With this factual scenario, she instituted the T.S. No. 24 of 1994 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Parlakhemundi for declaration of title.
3. The defendant filed the written statement pleading inter alia that Hal Plot No. 1327 appertaining to Hal Khata No. 495 of mouza-Jami is a portion of the Sabik Plot No. 269, Khata No. 8, area Ac. 0.74 dec. The same was recorded in favour of Danana Kaneya and Kalamati Surana. At the time of settlement operation, one Lalit Madhaba Deo was in unauthorised possession of the suit land. The settlement authority had recorded the land in Anabadi Khata No. 495, since the original owner was not in possession of the land. The plaintiff was not in possession of the land till 1988-89. Village-Jami was notified as urban area of Parlakhemundi Town. The suit land had been recorded in Anabadi Khata in the Hal ROR. In the year 1991, the plaintiff forcibly occupied the suit land. Encroachment case was initiated against her. After receipt of notice, husband of the petitioner appeared and admitted the encroachment. The R.I. submitted the report stating that the encroacher was in unauthorised occupation of the suit land. The plaintiff was the owner of Ac. 15.00 dec. of land. She was not a landless person. The encroached land was not settled in her favour. The plaintiff had not perfected title by way of adverse possession. She was evicted in the encroachment case. The standing crops were put to auction by the R.I. When the plaintiff again encroached upon the land, another L.E.C. No. 955/91 was initiated against her. Order of eviction was passed. Penalty was imposed on her. Again the plaintiff unauthorised occupied the suit land, for which, L.E.C. Nos. 204/92 and 820/93 were initiated against her. Order of eviction was passed. In Mutation Case No. 180/92, the husband of the plaintiff appeared on her behalf and produced the sale deed dated 10.6.72. Lalit Madhab Deo, vendor of the plaintiff, was not the owner of the suit land. Mutation Case was rejected. No appeal was preferred against the said order.
4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, the trial court struck five issues. Plaintiff adduced evidence, oral and documentary. The trial court dismissed the suit holding inter alia that the plaintiff has failed to prove her right, title and interest and possession over the suit land. The unsuccessful plaintiff filed T.A. No. 12/98 before the Additional District Judge, Gajapati, Parlakhemundi. The appellate court held that the plaintiff has claimed acquisition of title from her vendor and at the same time asserted that she has perfected title by way of adverse possession. She has not disclosed as to who is the owner of the suit land. There is no pleading that her vendo
