The plaintiffs' suit was dismissed on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and failure to substantiate claims against the defendant's established rights over the suit land under the OEA Act.

JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

This is a plaintiffs’ appeal against a confirming judgment. The suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that defendant No.1 has no right, title and interest over the suit property and that the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), Bhadrak in OEA Case No.12 of 1995 is illegal and without jurisdiction, as also for permanent injunction, was dismissed by the trial Court and said dismissal was confirmed by the first appellate Court.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective status in the trial Court.

3. The above mentioned suit was filed by the plaintiffs in representative capacity claiming to be villagers of Narayanpur. It is their case that the suit land was recorded under Anabadi Khata as per C.S. Plot No.220 measuring Ac.1.59 decs as a ‘Joro’ (water channel) being used as such. There is no other outlet to drain out the excess water from the adjacent cultivable lands of different portions. The channel is used by the villagers since the time immemorial with the same being under nobody’s exclusive possession. Some portion of the suit plot was used by the villagers for playground, grazing field and Harijan basti and another portion was possessed by one Babaji Jena. The defendant No.1 however, claims that Ac. 1.36 decs was obtained by him from the ex-landlord in a proceeding under Section 5(i) of the OEA ACT . The ex-landlord was his father. He put fence and ridges around the suit land, and when the villagers protested, he filed a police case against them. The villagers approached the Tahasildar, Dhamnagar, who initiated a case under Section 5(i) of the OEA ACT and conducted enquiry. After such enquiry, he passed an order dated 24.06.1995 against defendant No.1 and directed the land to be recorded in the name of the State. It is further stated that the land was under Anabadi Khata during vesting of the estate not being allotted to anybody. After abolition of Zamindari the ex-landlord granted ‘Ekpadia’ in favour of the defendant No.1, which is illegal. Defendant No.1 was a minor at that time and managed to subsequently record the land in his name during major settlement and also obtained rent receipts illegally. He filed appeal against the order of the Tahasildar before the ADM, Bhadrak without impleading the plaintiffs as parties. The ADM illegally allowed the appeal setting aside the order of the Tahasildar. Since the easementary right of the plaintiffs was affected thereby, they filed the suit in representative capacity.

4. Defendant No.1 contested the suit by filing written statement. His specific stand was that the suit land was recorded in the current settlement under Ananbadi khata. The then Zamindar transferred Ac.2.45 decs of land to defendant No.1 on the strength of a permanent Krushi Patta. After abolition of Zamindari the landlord issued ‘Ekpadia’ in favour of the defendant No.1, who was paying rent in the ‘Zamindari Sirasta’ and then ‘Anchala Sirasta’. He was therefore, declared as Stitiban Praja of the land. He converted some portion of the family of land to cultivable land and as pond as per amicable partition in the family vide deed dated 11.06.1969. Plot no.-229 measuring Ac. 0.79 decs was allotted to one Bishnu Prasad Mohapatra, while plot no. 228 measuring Ac. 1.59 decs and plot no.-233 measuring 0.07 decs were allotted to him. The lands were recorded accordingly and are in possession of the respective allottees. The said land was never used by the villagers, while he being a Government servant frequently remains absent from the village, taking advantage of which the villagers created trouble in his possession. The suit plot is neither