Back
2025 Supreme(Ori) 251
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.C.BEHERA, J.
Rama Chandra Jena (since dead through his LRs) - Appellants
Versus
Ballabhananda Sahoo and others - Respondents
S.A. No.215 of 1993
Decided on : 11-03-2025
For the Appellants :Mr. A.K. Bose, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. A. Sikdar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr.G. Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate. assisted by Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate, Mr. G. Mohanty, Standing Counsel
Plaintiffs established customary rights over communal land against the state, as ownership recognized; claims against a non-owner are legally invalid.
Headnote:(A) Orissa Land Reforms Act - Customary Rights; Easementary Rights - The plaintiffs claimed customary rights over communal land used for Dola Yatra and other purposes, whereas the defendant disputed these rights, asserting ownership through a sale deed. Court held that plaintiffs established customary rights, supported by community use and state ownership recognition. (Paras 6, 19)
(B) Customary Rights Law - Customary rights can only be asserted against the owner, not against a non-owner. Evidence indicates the state as the owner, thereby validating the villagers' claims. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, villagers of Pandua, sought a declaration of customary rights over land used for community activities against the alleged unlawful claims by a private defendant, supported by state ownership.
Findings of Court:
The state has recognized the villagers' customary rights based on long usage evidenced by R.o.Rs and corroborated by the defendant's non-ownership.
Issues: Whether the plaintiffs established customary rights; the maintainability of the suit given the ownership claims.
Ratio Decidendi: Customary rights must be proven against the property owner; here the state acknowledged the villagers' usage as communal and the claims against the state held validity; thus the First Appellate Court's decree was affirmed.
Result: The second appeal is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. parties involved in the second appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. contentions raised by both parties. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. first appellate court's findings. (Para 8 , 10) |
| 4. analysis of customary rights. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. final ruling on the appeal. (Para 20 , 21) |
JUDGMENT :
A.C. Behera, J.
This second appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.
2. The appellant in this second appeal was the defendant No.3 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.55 of 1978 and respondent No.3 before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.2 of 1984.
The respondent Nos.1 to 10 in this second appeal being the villagers of village Pandua under Tirtol police station in the district of Cuttack at present in the district of Jagatsinghpur were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.55 of 1978 and appellants before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.2 of 1984.
Respondent Nos.11 and 12 in this second appeal i.e. Collector and Tahasildar were the defendant Nos.1 & 2 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.55 of 1978 and respondent Nos.1 & 2 before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.2 of 1984.
3. The nature of the suit of the plaintiffs filed by the villagers of Pandua under Tirtol police station vide T.S. No.55 of 1978 against the defendants i.e. against the Collector, Tahasildar and Rama Chandra Jena was representative character suit for declaration of the customary rights of the villagers of Pandua including the plaintiffs over the suit properties and to injunct the defendant Nos.1 & 2 permanently from leasing out or settling the suit properties in favour of the defendant No.3 or from changing the nature and character of the same in any manner from its communal character along with the other reliefs, to which, they (plaintiffs) entitled for, as the Court deems fit and proper.
4. According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties described in schedule of the plaint belong to the State of Odisha. The villagers of Pandua including the plaintiffs have been performing Dola Yatra (Dola Melana) on the suit properties in each and every year during Dola Purnima since the time immemorial. There is also a well on the suit properties, which has been using by the villagers of Pandua for drinking purpose. The villagers of Pandua have also been using the suit properties for grazing their cattle, performing yatras and drying the harvested paddy crops. As such, the suit properties are communal land, in which, all the villagers of Pandua had/have their customary rights. When, they (villagers of Pandua including the plaintiffs) came to know that, the defendant Nos.1 & 2 are going to settle the suit properties in favour of the defendant No.3 and the defendant No.3 is trying to grab the suit properties illegally by filing a vexatious suit only in order to prevent the villagers of Pandua including the plaintiffs from exercising their customary rights on the same, then the villagers of Pandua on being represented through the plaintiffs approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.55 of 1978 against the defendants i.e. against the Collector, Tahasildar and Rama Chandra Jena arraying them as defendant Nos.1, 2 & 3 respectively praying for declaration of their customary rights over the suit properties and to injunct the defendant Nos.1 & 2 permanently from leasing out or settling the suit properties in favour of the defendant No.3 and from changing the nature and character of the suit properties in any manner from its communal character along with other reliefs, to which, they (plaintiffs) are entitled for.
5. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.55 of 1978 filed by the plaintiffs, the defendant Nos.1 & 2 i.e. Collector and Tahasildar filed their joint written statement stating that, the suit properties belong to the State. The defendant No.3 has no manner of right, title, interest and possession over the same. The
