Continuous possession for over thirty years under Section 8A of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act establishes entitlement, overriding procedural missteps by revenue authorities.

JUDGMENT :

S.K.Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioner, who claims to have been in continuous possession of the disputed property for over forty years, has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the order dated 21.06.2024, passed by the Collector, Sundargarh, in Revenue Revision No. 02/2020.

2. The Petitioner further seeks a direction from this Court to the Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4 to compensate the Petitioner for the loss suffered due to the demolition of his house pursuant to their order.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The Petitioner’s father had rendered personal service to one Rajiv Panda, the original owner of the suit land, who had been granted the land by the then ruler. The land, initially waterlogged and unfit for habitation, was made habitable by the Petitioner’s father through the investment of labor and money, followed by the construction of a 'Jhumpuri’ house. After his father’s death, the Petitioner continued residing on the land, where he built seven houses, three pucca shop rooms, a well, and a garden.

(ii) In 1954, the land was purportedly acquired by the State Government for the establishment of a steel plant. However, since the land was not needed for the plant, it was surrendered back to the Government.

(iii) In 1970, the Petitioner’s name was recorded as a forcible occupier in the remark column of the R.O.R. for Mouza Rourkela Town, Unit No. 38, Durgapur, under Khata No. 4, Plot Nos. 123/285 and 123/286, totaling an area of A 1.200 decimals.

(iv) Subsequently, due to an interference by a private individual on the suit land, the Petitioner filed the Title Suit No. 2 of 1980, seeking a declaration of his right, title, and interest in the disputed property. The Civil Court granted a decree in favor of the Petitioner, affirming his right, title, and interest in the land. However, the State Government was not made a party to the suit.

(v) Based on the declaration made by the Civil Court, the Petitioner filed the Mutation Case No. 308/91 before the Tahasildar. In the Mutation Case No. 308/91, although the Revenue Inspector reported the Petitioner’s possession since 1961, the Tahasildar did not effect the mutation.

(vi) On appeal in Mutation Appeal No. 3/92, the appellate authority directed the correction of the R.O.R. However, the matter was later placed before the Board of Revenue by the Collector, where the order of the appellate authority was rejected, effectively ending the mutation proceedings.

(vii)In the meantime, an Encroachment Case No. 678/93 was initiated by the Tahasildar. In response, the Petitioner filed O.J.C. No. 3910 of 1993 along with Misc. Case No. 4361/93 before this Court, which passed an order on 26.07.1993 directing the Tahasildar to dispose of the encroachment proceedings by the end of 1993.

(viii) In the Encroachment proceeding, the Tahasildar passed an order of eviction despite the Petitioner requesting the matter be referred to the Sub-Collector under Section 8A of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972.

(ix) The Petitioner then filed an appeal before the Sub-Collector, Panposh in Encroachment Appeal No. 5/93. After considering documentary evidence and conducting a spot visit with the Revenue Inspector, the appellate authority confirmed the Petitioner’s long possession of the land. It was found that the Petitioner was in possession of Anabadi Khata No. 4, Plot Nos. 123/285 and 123/286, totaling 0.98 decimals. The Sub-Collector observed several procedural lapses by the Tahasildar, including the failure to visit the site and ascertain the period of possession and directed the Tahasildar to take necessary actions in accordance with the provisions of the Orissa Pr