No Government Department should be permitted to perfect their title by way of adverse possession, and the State cannot take the plea of adverse possession to grab the property of its own citizens.

JUDGMENT

B.P. Routray, J. - The unsuccessful Plaintiffs are the Appellants before this Court. They challenge the concurrent refusal to grant relief to them by both the courts below.

2. The original Plaintiff, namely, Sri Karanam Taudu filed C.S. No.04/2005 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Parlakhemundi with the prayer as follows:

'(a) To pass a decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants declaring that, the Plaintiff is entitled to remaining portion of Khata No.486, Plot No.8304 after deducting 31/2 cents of lands gifted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant No.2, alternatively the Defendants be directed to pay the compensation as per rule to the Plaintiff,

(b) To grant cost of the suit and to grant such other reliefs as deemed fit, in the interest of justice.'

3. Present Appellants were substituted upon death of the original Plaintiff as his LRs.

4. The case of the Plaintiff is that he was the right, title owner of the lands in Sabik Patta No.407, Survey No.333/8 measuring Ac.0.25 decimals under Kasinagar Khaspa (mouza) and he gifted Ac.0.031/2 decimals of land out of the same in favour of the Forest Department for construction of staff quarters by executing Registered Gift Deed No.161 dated 14.2.1963. Thereafter Public Works Department acquired Ac.0.10 decimals out of the same plot for construction of the road upon payment of compensation. But the Forest Department illegally occupied the entire remaining lands beyond the extent of Ac.0.031/2 decimals (three and half decimals) gifted to them and constructed another quarters over the same. The Plaintiff therefore has approached the learned civil court with the prayer as afore-stated.

5. The Respondents-State authorities filed their WS stating that Forest Department have got their right over the entire suit property including those three and half decimals by way of adverse possession and in the last major settlement operation, the entire patch of suit land has been recorded in favour of Forest Department in Plot No.8304, Khata No.486 of mouza-Kasinagar measuring area Ac.0.115 decimals. It is their case that the land beyond three and half decimals is under possession of Forest Department since 1963, i.e. the date of execution of the Gift Deed in respect of three and half decimals. They have constructed quarters over the same and a well is also situating over the suit land. Their possession over the suit land is continuous, intentional and peaceful and within the full knowledge of the Plaintiff. So they have perfected their right against the Plaintiff by way of adverse possession and moreover, the final ROR has now been published on 31.8.2000 in their favour and the Plaintiff also did not raise his objection to the same.

6. Both the trial court as well as first appellate court by accepting the plea of adverse possession in favour of Forest Department refused to grant relief to the Plaintiff and dismissed the suit as well as the first appeal.

7. It reveals from the impugned judgment of the trial court dated 27.03.2006 that Issue Nos.4, 5 and 6 are in respect of acquisition of title by the Respondents (Defendants) by way of adverse possession and entitlement of the Plaintiff for compensation. Learned trial court under Issue Nos.4 and 5 has concluded that the Defendants acquired title over the suit land by way of adverse possession and therefore the Plaintiff lost his title over the same. Under Issue No.6, the learned trial court held that the Plaintiff is not entitled for any compensation in absence of specification of the quantum thereof stated by him. Further under Issue No.7, which is regarding limitation in filing the suit, the learned trial court concluded that the suit being filed on 5.1.2005 and the settlement ROR being published on 31.8.2000, the suit is barred by limitation as a suit for recovery of possession would have been maintainable within three years from 1963.

8. Learned District Judge, Gajapati, who is the first appellate court confirmed all such fin