IMPORTANT POINT
Occupancy rights—Possession of a tenant under an intermediary on date of vesting of land is crucial.

JUDGMENT

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Civil Appeal No. 1812 of 2010 arising from the common judgment and order dated 30.7.2009 passed by the High Court of Orissa in F.A.No.10 of 2001 affirming the decree dated 29.7.2000 passed by the learned Trial Court may be conveniently treated as the main appeal for consideration. In that event the fate of the connected appeals would stand determined by the outcome of the aforesaid Civil Appeal i.e. C.A. No.1812 of 2010.

2. The respondents 1 and 2, as plaintiffs, instituted Title Suit No.620 of 1998 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Bhubaneswar seeking a declaration of occupancy rights in their favour as well as for affirmation of their possession as tenants in respect of the suit land. A further direction to the defendants 1 and 2 (appellants) to accept rent from the plaintiffs and a permanent restraint against interference in the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land was also sought in the suit filed.

3. The short case of the plaintiffs(respondents) before the learned Trial Court was to the effect that their father Nidhi Sethi who served under the Ex-ruler of Kanika Raja as a washer man was granted lease of the suit land measuring 4.16 acres covered under Sabik Plot No.292 appertaining to holding No.303 situated in Mouza Chandrasekharpur. According to the plaintiffs, the aforesaid land was leased to their father on 14.2.1942; possession of the land was delivered and rent paid by their father as tenant was accepted by the Ex-ruler. The plaintiffs further claimed that an unregistered Hatapatta (lease agreement) (Ext.1) was also granted by the Ex-proprietor in favour of the plaintiffs’ father. It was the case of the plaintiffs that since the date of the lease their father and thereafter the plaintiffs had been in possession of the suit land using the same for residential as well as agricultural purposes.

4. It was the further case of the plaintiffs, as stated in the plaint, that the intermediary interest in the estate including the suit land stood abolished and vested in the State Government sometime in the year 1954 under the provisions of the Orissa Estate Abolition Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Abolition Act’). According to the plaintiffs, even thereafter, their father had paid rent to the State Government through the Tehsildar and had continued to be in possession of the suit land. It was also the case of the plaintiff that their father had died in the year 1967, whereafter, the plaintiffs continued to remain in possession. Furthermore, according to the plaintiffs, in the Record of Rights published in the year 1974 upon completion of settlement operation the land was shown as Government land; the said entry was on account of fact that the plaintiffs were living outside Orissa. In the Record of Rights pursuant to 1988 settlement the State Government was shown as the owner of the suit land with a note of forcible possession of the same by the plaintiffs against the remarks column. While the matter was situated, the defendants 3 and 4 in the suit i.e. Director of NCC and Defence Estate Officer attempted to trespass into the suit land. The suit in question was therefore filed seeking the reliefs earlier noticed.

5. The defendants 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement pleading, inter alia, that the claim of the lease in favour of the father of the appellant with effect from 14.2.1942 and the execution of the Hatapatta (Ext.1) was untouched. The Hatapatta and the supporting rent receipts issued by the Ex-ruler (Ext.2 series), according to the defendants, were forged and fabricated documents. The claim of possession of the father of the plaintiffs and thereafter of the plaintiffs over the suit land was vehemently contested by the State in the written statement filed. The State also contended that the entries in the Record of Rights after conclusion of the settlement operation in the year 1974 which did not disclose any interest of the plaintiffs over the su