The Lambardar Gountia lacked authority to lease Gochar land, invalidating the plaintiff's title claim.

JUDGMENT :

Sashikanta Mishra, J.

The plaintiff is the appellant against a reversing judgment. The suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of his right, title, interest and confirmation of possession in respect of the schedule land was decreed by the trial Court but reversed and dismissed by the first appellate Court.

2. The plaintiff’s case, briefly stated, is that one Ramprasad Guru being the Lambardar Gountia of village Pandloi in the district of Sambalpur executed a registered permanent lease deed bearing No. 372 dated 22.11.1924 in favour of Haragovind Purohit, a minor represented by his father guardian Achyutanand Purohit and delivered possession of the land. Said land pertains to Dewan Settlement Plot Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8,340, 342 and 353 which correspond to Hamid Settlement Plot Nos. 1, 514 and 527, the total extent of land being Ac. 47.14 decimals. The minor lessee paid land revenue to the Lambardar Gountia. Some of the co-sharers of Lambardar Gountia challenged the lease deed before the Deputy Commissioner, Sambalpur in Revenue Case No- 5/9- 12 of 1925-26 but the same was dismissed on 13.07.1925. Achyutanand Purohit on behalf of his minor son filed Revenue Case No.11/2-114 of 1926- 27 before the Tahasildar, Sambalpur for demarcation of the lease hold land which was allowed by order dated 21.06.1927. Haragovind Purohit possessed the land after attaining majority. His father died on 31.08.1982 while he himself died on 11.09.2001. During his lifetime, Haragovind Purohit executed a Will on 10.09.1986 in respect of the entire lease-hold property in favour of the plaintiff, who is his nephew. The Will, which was unregistered was in the custody of its scribe namely, Fakir Sahoo who handed over the same to the plaintiff in the year 2004. As such, the plaintiff succeeded to the property on his own right, title and interest. The plaintiff further claims that the suit schedule A land measuring Ac. 11.25 decimals corresponding to Hamid Settlement Plot No. 1 of M.S. Khata No. 119 corresponds to the lease- hold land granted by the Lambardar Gountia but was wrongly recorded in the name of the State Government in Rakhit Khata as Gochar Kisam behind his back. He therefore, filed OSS Case No. 186/2004 before the Member, Board of Revenue for correction of ROR but said case was dismissed on 17.02.2007. It is further averred that the State Government was never in possession of the suit land. But taking advantage of the wrong recording in the ROR, the defendants started De-reservation Proceeding no.15 of 2004 to lease out the land to IDCO for establishment of factories by dispossessing the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

3. The defendant-State, represented through the Collector, contested the suit by filing written statement disputing the plaint averments. It was pleaded that the plaintiff is not in possession over the suit land. The settlement operation, though completed in the year 1988, neither the name of the plaintiff nor of his testator was recorded. The record of the demarcation case of the year 1926-27 is not available in the office and the Member, Board of Revenue rightly dismissed the case for correction of ROR with regard to lease OSS No. 186/2004. It was stated that the same was dropped as there is no sufficient surplus land available in the village. It is also stated that the sanction of lease in favour of Haragovind Purohit is a fictitious story and no steps were taken by the plaintiff or his predecessor to record their names in respect of the suit land in two successive settlements. The plaintiff is trying to grab the Government land. There is even no note of possession in favour of the plaintiff or his predecess