IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK S.A. No.315 of 1989 (In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

State of Orissa represented by the …. Appellant District Collector, Sambalpur -versus-

Prafulla Kumar Pradhan(dead) and …. Respondents others Appeared in this case:-

For Appellant : Mr. G. Mohanty, Learned Standing Counsel For Respondents : None Appeared in this case:-

CORAM:

JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing : 13.01.2025 / date of judgment : 31.01.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This 2^nd appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.

2. The appellant-State in this 2^nd appeal was the defendant before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.32 of 1985 and respondent before the

1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.06 of 1987.

3. The respondent in this 2^nd appeal was the plaintiff before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.32 of 1985 and appellant before the 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.06 of 1987.

The suit of the plaintiff(respondent in this 2^nd appeal) vide T.S.

No.32 of 1985 before the trial court against the defendant(appellant in this 2^nd appeal) was a suit for declaration.

4. As per plaintiff’s case, the suit properties are under Khata No.184 in Plot Nos.911, 941, 1046, 1360 and 1361 in Mouza-Bamparda, corresponds to part of Sabik Plot Nos.643, 675, 786, 917 and 1643 under Sabik Khata No.65. The properties Ac.10.23 decimals under Sabik Khata No.65 were recorded in the name of one Nishakara Pradhan. The said Nishakara Pradhan sold that, Ac.10.23 decimals under Sabik Khata No.65 to the plaintiff executing and registering a sale deed dated 02.11.1955. After purchasing that Ac.10.23 decimals from Nishakara Pradhan, plaintiff applied for mutation of the said properties to his name, but, the prayer of the plaintiff for mutation was refused by the revenue authorities on the ground that, the said properties are the properties of the State. For which, the plaintiff approached the civil court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.19 of 1962 against the State in the court of learned Munsif, Deogarh praying for declaration of his right, title and interest over that Ac.10.23 decimals properties under Sabik Khata No.65 and also prayed for recovery of possession along with mesne profits.

That suit of the plaintiff vide T.S. No.19 of 1962 was dismissed by the learned Munsif, Deogarh.

Then, he (plaintiff) challenged the said dismissal of his suit preferring 1^st appeal vide F.A. No.46/110 of 1963 in the court of learned District Judge, Sambalpur.

The said 1^st appeal vide F.A. No.46/110 of 1963 filed by the plaintiff was allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial court passed in T.S. No.19 of 1962 was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff vide T.S. No.19 of 1962 was decreed.

Thereafter, the defendant/State challenged the same by preferring

2^nd appeal vide S.A. No.160 of 1964, but, that 2^nd appeal vide S.A. No.160 of 1964 of the State was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Courts on dated 10.03.1967 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the 1^st appellate court in F.A. 46/110 of 1963.

Then, as per Execution Case No.04 of 1983, the plaintiff got recovery of possession of the suit properties, i.e., Ac.10.23 decimals under Sabik Khata No.65 and possessed the same paying rent to the Government.

Subsequent thereto, the plaintiff sold Ac.3.81 decimals, out of Ac.10.23 decimals from the same to a person/vendee. Accordingly, in the Major Settlement, the said sold Ac.3.81 decimals was recorded in the name of his purchaser/vendee/transferee and only Ac.0.10 decimals was recorded in the name of plaintiff under Hal Khata No.98, but, the rest properties, i.e., Ac.6.69 decimals, out of Ac.10.23 decimals were recorded in the name of the State of Orissa erroneously in the Hal Major Settlement under Abadajogya Anabadi Khata vide Hal Khata No.184.

The said Ac.6.69 decimals under Hal Khata No.184 are the disputed properties in the present suit.

When, in the Hal Major S