The civil court lacks jurisdiction in matters concerning the adverse possession claim by non-tribals over tribal land, as per the Orissa Regulation, 1956.

JUDGMENT :

ANANDA CHANDRA BEHERA, J.

1. Since both the 2^nd Appeals have arisen out of an analogous Judgment passed in T.A. Nos.5 & 6 of 1986 in connection with one suit vide T.S. No.15 of 1982-I, then, both the 2^nd Appeals are taken up together analogously for their final adjudication through this common Judgment.

2. S.A.No.215 of 1987-:

The appellants and respondent Nos.7 to 9 in this 2^nd Appeal were the defendant Nos.3 to 9 before Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.15/1982-I and respondent Nos.3 to 9 before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.6/1986.

The respondent Nos.1 to 4 in this 2nd Appeal were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.15/1982-I and appellants before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.6/1986.

The respondent Nos.5 and 6 in this 2^nd Appeal were the defendant Nos.1 and 2 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.15/1982-I and respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the First Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.6/1986.

S.A.No.219 of 1987-:

The appellants and respondent Nos.7 to 11 in this 2nd Appeal were the defendant Nos.3 to 9 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.15/1982-I and appellant Nos.1 and 2 along with respondent Nos.7 to 11 before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.5/1986.

The respondent Nos.1 to 4 in this 2nd Appeal were the plaintiffs before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.15/1982-I and respondent Nos.1 to 4 before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.5/1986.

The respondent Nos.5 and 6 in this 2^nd Appeal were the defendant Nos.1 and 2 before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.15/1982-I and respondent Nos.5 and 6 before the 1^st Appellate Court in the 1^st Appeal vide T.A. No.5/1986.

3. The suit of the plaintiffs i.e. Nuadru @ Prafulla Chandra Mohanta, Padma Charan Mohanta, Laxmidhar Mohanta & Bipati Bewa vide T.S. No.15/1982-I against the defendants (State of Orissa, S.D.O, Panchpir, Dibakar, Bipin, Niranjan, Duryadhan, Gouri, Pada and Aiban) was a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and confirmation of possession in respect of the suit properties described in the schedule of the plaint vide T.S. No.15/1982-I.

4. According to plaintiffs case, the suit properties vide Plot Nos.697 & 698 originally belong to the predecessors of the defendant Nos.3 to 9, to which, the father of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 i.e. Haradhan Mohanta had purchased through unregistered sale deeds. As such, the father of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 i.e. Haradhan Mohanta was the exclusive owner and in possession over suit plot Nos.697 and 698.

When Haradhan Mohanta was the exclusive owner and in possession over suit plot Nos.697 & 698, a Revenue Misc. Case vide Revenue Misc. Case No.87/1976 was initiated against him by the defendant No.2 (S.D.O Panchpir) in respect of suit plot Nos.697 & 698 illegally and arbitrarily. An order of eviction was also passed in that Revenue Misc. Case No.87/1976 by the defendant No.2 (S.D.O Panchpir) on dated 28.11.1979 for eviction of the father of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 (Haradhan Mohanta) from the suit plot Nos.697 & 698 and the father of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 was directed to pay penalty of Rs.115/- to defendant Nos.3 to 9 for his unauthorized occupation of the suit plot Nos.697 & 698 in contravention to the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Regulation 2 of 1956, because, the defendant Nos.3 to 9 belong to Schedule Tribe Community, but the father of the plaintiffs as well as the plaintiffs belong to General Caste Community.

The father of the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 (Haradhan Mohanta) challenged to the said order