The court affirmed that land acquired by the State is beyond legal contestation from previous owners who accepted compensation, reinforcing the principle that possession following acquisition is unauthorized.

Judgment :

A.C. Behera, J.

1. This 2nd appeal has been preferred against the confirming judgment.

2. The appellants in this 2^nd Appeal were the plaintiffs before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.130 of 1973 and appellants before the 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.19/28 of 1981-87.

The respondents in this 2nd appeal were the defendants before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.130 of 1973 and respondents before the 1st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.19/28 of 1981-87.

3. The suit of the plaintiffs (appellants in this 2^nd appeal) vide T.S. No.130 of 1973 was a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, in alternative recovery of possession.

4. The case of the plaintiffs(appellants in this 2nd appeal) against the defendants(respondents in this 2nd appeal) in a nutshell as per the averments made in their plaint is that, the plaintiff no.1 is the deity and the plaintiff no.2 is its trustee on being duly appointed by the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowment, Orissa.

The plaintiff no.1(deity) is the owner and in possession over the suit land. The defendants have no manner of right, title, interest and possession over the suit land,

The defendant no.2(S.D.O. Canal Division, Barpali) filed a Mutation Case vide Mutation Case No.501 of 1969 before the Tahsildar, Sonepur for correction of RoR of the suit land from the name of the plaintiff no.1-deity to the name of the State(defendant no.1). To which, the plaintiffs objected, but, their objection was rejected and the Mutation Case No.501 of 1969 was allowed in favour of the State(defendant no.1). Then, the plaintiffs challenged the same by filing Mutation Appeal No.19 of 1971 before the S.D.O., Sonepur, but, that Mutation Appeal No.19 of 1971 of the plaintiffs was rejected. As, the defendant no.2(S.D.O. Canal Division) disclosed in the Mutation Case No.501 of 1969 that, the suit land has already been acquired by the State(defendant no.1), for which, the plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendant praying for declaration of their title over the suit land and to confirm their possession thereon, in alternative recovery of possession, if they(plaintiffs) are found to be dispossessed from the suit land in the meantime stating in the plaint that, the plaintiff no.1 is the owner of the suit and they (plaintiffs) had/have been possessing the same. No statutory provisions of law have been complied with for acquisition of the suit land. For which, the ownership and possession of the plaintiff no.1(deity) over the suit land is continuing and they(plaintiffs) are regularly paying the rent of the suit land to the State and the State had/has been accepting the rents of the suit land regularly from them(plaintiffs). The RoR of the suit land stands in the name of the plaintiffs. The order of the Tahsildar passed in Mutation Case No.501 of 1969 for correction of RoR of the suit land in favour of the State has created a cloud over the title of the plaintiffs on the suit land. For which, they (plaintiffs) filed the suit against the defendants praying for the above relief(s).

5. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.130 of 1973, the defendants contested the same by filing their joint written statement denying all the averments made by the plaintiffs in their plaint taking their stands specifically that, the suit land has already been acquired by the State of Orissa(defendant no.1) for public purposes following the provisions of the Orissa Act XVIII of 1948 in the year 1958 on payment of proper compensation amount to the Commissioner of Hindu Religious