The burden of proof lies upon the Defendants to establish their claim over the suit land, and the suit for permanent injunction was maintainable despite the provisions of the OCH & PFL Act.

JUDGMENT :

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 26.03.2021 passed by the learned District Judge, Puri in R.F.A. No.14 of 2011.

By the same, the Appeal filed by this Appellant and Respondent No.8 under Section-96 of the Code questioning the judgment and decree dated 22.01.2011 and 05.02.2011 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Puri in Civil Suit No.115 of 2018 has been dismissed and thus the impugned judgment and decree have been confirmed.

The Respondent No.1, as the Plaintiff, had filed the suit arraigning the Appellant and his elder brother as well as six other Respondents as the Defendants seeking a decree of permanent injunction against them from interfering with his peaceful possession over the suit land. The suit having been decreed injuncting the Respondents (Defendants) from interfering with the peaceful possession of the Plaintiff in respect of the suit land, this Appellant as well as his brothers had filed the First appeal. That having been dismissed, now this Appellant alone has come to challenge the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below and his elder brother, who was contesting the suit with the present Appellant and had together filed the written statement, having not joined in the challenge; he has been arraigned as Respondent No.8.

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 Suit.

3. The Plaintiff’s case is that the suit land is a portion of vast area of land under Sabik Khata No.28. This land originally belonged to one Sunil Kanta Ghosh. The suit land being found to be ceiling surplus land in a ceiling proceeding initiated against Sunikanta under the provisions of Orissa Land Reforms Act, 1960 (for short, ‘OLR Act’) finally vested with the State. The State settled that land in favour of the Plaintiff on acceptance of his application by an order passed in Lease Case, i.e. CSLS No.81 of 1987. It is stated that the Revenue Authorities as well as the Consolidation Authorities accordingly finding the Plaintiff to have been conferred with the absolute ownership in respect of the suit land, prepared the record of right in respect of the suit land in his favour. The Plaintiff, thus being in continuous possession, when has found the Defendants to be disturbing in his possession, he has come to file the suit. In fact, the Defendants 4 and 5 as well as 8 had initiated Consolidation Revision Proceeding vide R.C. Case No.15 of 2002 and 247 of 2005 in questioning the consolidation Record of Right in respect of the suit land granted to the Plaintiff.

According to the case of the Plaintiff, the Defendant No.1 although claims to have purchased the some properties from Defendants 3 and 8 appertaining to Consolidation Khata No.17, Plot Nos.168 & 176 of Mouza-Bhimapur, the same has no nexus with the suit land and he has no right whatsoever in so far as the suit land is concerned.

4. The Defendants 1 and 2 filed their written statement together and another set of written statement has been jointly filed by Defendants 3 to 5. The Defendant No.1 having filed the present Appeal and he having challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Trial court by carrying the First Appeal, his case, as stated in the written statement, is placed hereunder.

It is the case of Defendants 1 and 2 that Sunilkanta Ghosh, the original and erstwhile owner of the suit land had sold the property to one Bira Palei by registered sale deed dated 06.09.1982. The possession of the suit land being delivered to Bira Palei, he continued to possess the same as its owner exercising all the rights. Bira with Defendants 3 to 7 developed the land. By practicing fraud, the Plaintiff obtained the order of settlement in CSLS No.8 of 1987 and it is stated that the Authorities, throwing the provisions o