Recognition of the State's title by the Plaintiff through payment of penalty for unauthorized possession indicates lack of hostile animus, negating adverse possession claim.

JUDGMENT

D.Dash, J. - The Appellant, by filing this appeal, under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, the Code ) has assailed the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2019 and 06.11.2019 respectively passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Balasore in RFA No.95/81 of 2013- 2009.

By the said judgment and decree, the lower Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree dated 20.05.2009 and 20.06.2009 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in C.S. No. 1038 of 2005-I.

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. The unsuccessful Plaintiff s case is that the suit schedule land was originally belonging to Ex-Intermediaries, Choudhury Balabhadra Das and others and it was recorded as per the C.S. record under khata No. 353 under Danda kisam. It is stated that said Ex-Intermediary keeping the request of Radhakrushna Panda who happens to be the father of the Plaintiff while in possession of the suit land issued Amalanama Patta in favour of the Plaintiff. Said patta is said to have been granted on 01.04.1944. The Plaintiff s father then possessed the suit land on the strength of that Amalanama Patta and made the same fit for cultivation. He also paid rent in the Zamindari-Sherasta . So it is stated that the Plaintiff entered into the possession of the suit land right from the year 1944 through his father by virtue of that Amalanama Patta granted by Ex-Intermediary. It is his case that he has been in possession of the suit land to the knowledge of all concerned and that possession has all along been open, peaceful and continuous without any interference from any quarter. The Plaintiff thus claims to have acquired right, title, interest and possession over the suit land by adverse possession. The Plaintiff having approached the Settlement Authority in course of Major Settlement Operation for recording of the suit land in his name, it was all in order up to the Khanapuri stage of the Settlement Operation. Then however, the Settlement Authority raised a query in respect of the suit land. The Yadast record revealed Plaintiff s possession and that had been noted in respect of the land under C.S. plot No. 119 being under C.S. khata No. 353 by virtue of that Hata Patta granted by Ex-Intermediary. Finally however the record of right was published in the Settlement Operation recording the land in suit in favour of the Defendant No. 1-State. This was in the year 1985. Be that as it may, the note of possession finds mention in the said ROR in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff thus claims to have got the right, title, interest and possession over the suit land.

4. The Defendants-State and its Officials in their written statement have averred that the land under M.S. plot No. 175 , khata No. 530 corresponds to C.S. plot No. 119 under C.S. khata No. 353 towards east measuring Ac.0.32 dec. out of Ac.2.81 dec. It is said that the Ex-Intermediary has neither submitted a Rafa in the name of the Plaintiff nor his father nor any Tenant Ledger had been opened after submission of the return by the Ex-Zamindar. It is also stated that the suit land was never recorded in the name of ExIntermediary namely Choudhury Balabhadra Das and others and no such Amalanama Patta had been granted in favour of the Plaintiff on 01.04.1944. The Plaintiff s possession of the suit land by making it fit for cultivation and the factum of payment of rent in the Zamindari Sherasta have been denied. It is stated that the Plaintiff has not possessed the suit land at any time and has not at all acquired title by adverse possession. According to them, there was no such Yadast entry as claimed by the Plaintiff. It is stated that the record reveals that the suit land under khata No. 353, plot No. 119 was of Danda kissam and in the Major Settlement Operation, its kissam has been noted as Godanda und