A person occupying land unauthorisedly for over thirty years is entitled to settlement under Section 8-A of the Act, but until such settlement, claims for compensation are considered premature.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH TANDON, CJ.

1. Though the writ petition filed by the appellant is allowed by the Single Bench, yet the appellant has challenged the said judgment and order in the instant appeal.

2. At the outset, we invited the attention of the counsel appearing for the appellant as to whether the appellant can still be regarded as an aggrieved person so as to file an appeal against the impugned order. It is the specific stand of the appellant that the single Bench did not consider the relief claimed in the writ petition in its proper perspective and, therefore, he can be regarded as an aggrieved person. We will deal with the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant in support of the stand that the appellant is still an aggrieved person despite the writ petition having allowed by the single Bench as we find that the salient facts involved in the instant case as succinctly recorded in the impugned order are required to be jotted down in seriatim.

3. The dispute hovers around the right to have the settlement of land in case of an encroachment for more than thirty years contemplated under Section 8 -A of the Odisha Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972.

3.1 According to the appellant one Rajiv Panda owned and possessed the land in question granted by the then Ruler and the father of the appellant was rendering services to the said owner and was permitted to use and utilise the said land, which was at relevant point of time water logged and unfit for habitation. According to the appellant, his father invested the labour and money to make the land in question habitable and also constructed a house thereat, which after the death of his father continued to be used and occupied by the appellant. Even the appellant also constructed several houses, shop rooms, a well and a garden thereat and was enjoying the usufructs therefrom.

3.2 An acquisition proceeding was initiated in the year 1954 by the State Government to acquire the said land for establishment of the steel plant which could not be materialised at the relevant point of time as the requisitioning authority did not intend to set up the plant thereat and reverted the said land to the Government. After reversion of the land, the appellant came to occupy the premises in 1970, which would be corroborated by the entry in the Record of Right recording the appellant’s possession as forcible occupier.

3.3 Certain persons tried to invade the right created by such occupation which constrained the appellant to file Title Suit No. 2 of 1980 before the Civil Court for declaration of his right, title and interest in respect of the disputed property in which the decree was passed in favour of the appellant. On the basis of such decree passed by the Civil Court, mutation case No. 308/1991 was filed before the Tahasildar, wherein the Revenue Inspector submitted the report affirming the possession of the appellant since 1961, but despite such report having filed, the Tahasildar declined to effect the mutation in favour of the appellant. The order of the Tahasildar passed in Mutation Case No. 308/1991 was challenged by the appellant in an appeal being Mutation Appeal No. 3/1992 before the Appellate Authority, which was disposed of by directing the correction of the Record of Right, but the matter did not receive quietus and was placed before the Board of Revenue by the Collector, wherein the order of the appellate authority was set aside bringing a finality of mutation proceeding.

3.4 Subsequently an Encroachment Case No. 678/1993 was initiated by the Tahasildar, wherein the order of eviction was passed, although the appellant pleaded that it is a fit case for referral to the Sub-Collector under Section 8 -A of the said Act of 1972. An