Point of Law: Illegal Cultivation of land – Rejection of application for settlement -long continuous and uninterrupted possession of the land in question as its owner to the knowledge of the true owner, i.,e., the State, the Plaintiffs have acquired title in respect of the suit land by adverse possession.

JUDGMENT :

1. The Appellants by filing this Appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) have assailed the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2017 and 14.12.2017 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sonepur in R.F.A. No.29/9 of 2005-2017. By the said judgment and decree, the lower Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2005 and 17.03.2005 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Sonepur in C.S. No.23 of 2003.

2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity; the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the trial court.

3. Plaintiffs case is that the land which is the subject matter of the Suit belonged to the State of Orissa (Defendant) and it stands recorded as such in the Record of Right. The lands are cultivable lands and the father of the Plaintiff No.1 made those lands fit for cultivation by dint of his own effort and since then he has been in possession of the suit land since the year 1940 till his death. On the death of the father of the Plaintiff No.1, his son, the Plaintiff No.1 and son-in-law, the Plaintiff No.2 have been in possession of the said property.

The present Plaintiff No.1, who being the son and the other Plaintiff being the son-in-law of Nimai Mahana are in possession of the same. It is stated that an Encroachment Case had been initiated against the father of the Plaintiff No.1 for his unauthorized cultivation of the suit property wherein, he had prayed for settlement of the same. To that effect, he had filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sonepur, which had been rejected. An appeal being preferred, the Collector, Bolangir in Encroachment Appeal No.40/60-61 was pleased to order that the land be settled in favour of the father of Plaintiff No.1. Saying so, as mandated in law the matter being forwarded for due approval by the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, the matter, however, has rested there without further development. In the subsequent Settlement operation; the record of right in respect of the suit land has been prepared in the name of the State. There being a move before the Revenue Authorities for correction of the said record of right that has yielded no fruitful result.

4. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that they have been in open, peaceful and continuous possession of the suit land to the knowledge of the Defendant-State and its officials all along since the time of Nimai Mahana. It is stated that for such long continuous and uninterrupted possession of the land in question as its owner to the knowledge of the true owner, i.,e., the State, the Plaintiffs have acquired title in respect of the suit land by adverse possession. They assert to have been all along in possession of the suit land denying the title of the State and for such long possession, the title of the State is said to have been extinguished. The Defendants-State appearing in the suit contested the same without filing the written statement.

5. The Trial Court on the above rival pleadings framed as many as nine issues. In answering the crucial issues touching upon the claim of the Plaintiffs as to the acquisition of the title over the suit land by adverse possession and extinguishment of the right, title and interest of the true owner, i.e., the State in respect of the suit land, upon analysis of evidence on record in the backdrop of the case as projected by the Plaintiffs in their pleading has held that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish their claim as laid. Having said so, the Plaintiffs have been non-suited. Being aggrieved by the same, an Appeal under section 96 of the Code being filed, the lower Appellate Court has concluded that the Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the required ingredients for establishment of their claim of acquisition of title over the suit land by adverse possession by leading clear, cogent and acceptable evidence. Furthe