IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK S.A. No.96 of 1990 (In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)

The Executive Engineer(Irrigation), …. Appellants Bhanjanagar and others -versus-

Smt. Tarini Patro and another …. Respondents Appeared in this case:-

For Appellants : Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty, learned Standing Counsel For Respondents : None Appeared in this case:-

CORAM:

JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing : 04.02.2025 / date of judgment : 11.03.2025 A.C. Behera, J. This 2^nd appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.

2. The appellants in this 2^nd appeal were the defendant nos.1 to 3 before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.105 of 1985 and respondent nos.1 to 3 before the 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.08 of 1987.

3. The respondent no.2 in this 2^nd appeal was the defendant no.4 before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.105 of 1985 and respondent no.4 before the 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.08 of

1987.

The respondent no.1 in this 2^nd appeal was the sole plaintiff before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.105 of 1985 and appellant before the 1^st appellate court in the 1^st appeal vide T.A. No.08 of 1987.

The suit of the plaintiff(respondent no.1 in this 2^nd appeal) before the trial court vide T.S. No.105 of 1985 against the defendants(appellants and respondent no.2 in this 2^nd appeal) was a suit for permanent injunction simpliciter.

4. The suit land is Plot No.330(227/369) to the extent of A. 0.080 decimals and Plot No.329(227/370) to the extent of A.0.122 decimals under Khata No.46 in total A. 0.202 decimals in mouza G. Dhougam under Aska Sub-registrar in the district of Ganjam.

According to the plaintiff, she is the owner of the suit Plot Nos.329 and 330, upon which, her residential house, latrine, bathroom etc. have been constructed. The suit plots stand recorded in her name. Surprisingly on dated 26.09.1985, the defendant nos.1 and 2 along with their staffs up- rooted the vegetable plants from some portions of suit plots, i.e., from the suit land and made primary preparation for digging a canal on the same, which is inside her homestead at the back of her house, to which, she (plaintiff) protested. So, the defendant nos.1 and 2 could not proceed with their works for digging the canal in the suit land. Then, in order to institute a suit for injunction against the defendant nos.1 to 3, the plaintiff issued statutory notices under Section 80 of the CPC, 1908 to the defendants nos.1 to 3 and after statutory period, she(plaintiff) filed the suit vide T.S. No.105 of 1985 against the defendants praying for injuncting the defendants permanently from entering into the suit land and from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the suit land.

5. Having been noticed from the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.105 of 1985, the defendants contested the same by filing their written statement jointly taking their stands that, the suit of the plaintiff for injunction against the defendants is not maintainable.

According to the defendants, the suit properties have already been lawfully acquired by the State through lawful land acquisition proceeding for public purpose in order to pass a canal through the same. For such acquisition of the suit properties, as per law, notices were served on the plaintiff and the lawful compensation amount thereof has been kept under deposit in the Government Treasury on 22.11.1984, as in spite of the notices to the plaintiff for receiving the said compensation amount, the plaintiff did not turn up to receive the same. When, the suit properties have already been acquired lawfully by the State and the possession thereof has already been taken by the State on 17.10.1984 as per law and when, the plaintiff has no possession over the suit properties and when, due to acquisition of the suit properties, the suit properties vested with the Government, for which, the suit for per