Consolidation authorities' records establish title and possession, superseding claims of adverse possession, which indirectly acknowledge the opposing party's title, rendering simultaneous inconsistency unacceptable.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

The 2^nd appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment.

2. The appellant of this 2^nd appeal was the plaintiff before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.03 of 1997 and he was the appellant before the 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.02 of 2000.

3. The respondents of this 2^nd appeal were the defendants before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.03 of 1997 and they were the respondents before the 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A.No.02 of 2000.

4. The suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.03 of 1997 before the trial court was a suit for declaration and confirmation of possession, in alternative for demolition of the structures, if the structures are made forcibly by the defendants in the suit properties during the pendency of the suit and also for recovery of possession of the suit properties, in case the possession of the suit properties is taken away by the defendants forcibly from the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit and also for permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering into his possession in the suit properties.

5. As per the plaint of the plaintiff, the suit properties are non- consolidable Plot No.360 Ac.0.420 decimals and non-consolidable Plot No.365 Ac.0.480 decimals under Consolidation Khata No.73.

According to him(plaintiff), he(plaintiff) is the exclusive owner and in possession over the suit properties and the suit properties covered under Consolidation Khata No.73 has been recorded in his name exclusively. The suit properties were also recorded in his name exclusively in the 4^th settlement under Khata No.40. During consolidation operation, the defendants had claimed for recording the suit properties in their names, but, their said claim was rejected by the consolidation authorities and ultimately final consolidation RoR of the suit properties was published in the name of the plaintiff under Consolidation Khata No.73 after adjudicating/deciding the right, title and interest of the parties in respect of the suit properties. But, in the final consolidation RoR of the suit properties under Khata No.73, the possession of the defendants were erroneously noted in the remarks column of suit Plot Nos.360 and 365. In fact, the defendants were/are not in possession over any portion of the suit plots. Consolidation authorities were not authorized under law to note the possession of the defendants in the remarks column of the consolidation RoR, in respect of the suit plots. For which, the said noting of possession in favour of the defendants in the remarks column of the suit plots are required to be ignored for all purposes. The suit properties are situated by the side of the road, for which, the plaintiff has been using the suit properties for multy purposes. When the defendants tried to make construction on the suit properties forcibly by storing the building construction materials near the same, then the plaintiff objected the same, for which, the defendants could not able to make any construction on the suit properties. The defendants have no manner of right, title and interest in the suit properties, because, neither the plaintiff nor any of his ancestors has transferred the suit properties in favour of the defendants. When the defendants are trying to make construction over the suit properties forcibly, then, apprehending danger to the title of the plaintiff by the threat of the defendants, he (plaintiff) app