Orissa High Court
Afr Gayatri Panigrahi & Anr vs State Of Odisha & Others on 5 April, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RSA No.175 of 2019
[In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 read with
Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.]
AFR Gayatri Panigrahi & Anr. .... Appellants
-Versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Respondents
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:
For the Appellants : Mr. S.P. Mishra, Sr. Advocate
with M/s. S. Mishra, A. Mohanta,
and N. Sharma, Advocates.
For Respondents : Mr. A.R. Dash,
Addl. Government Advocate
___________________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
th
5 April, 2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The plaintiffs are the appellants against a
confirming judgment. The suit of the plaintiffs for
declaration of their right, title, interest and possession over
the suit land, confirmation of possession along with
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13
permanent injunction was dismissed by the Trial Court and
confirmed by the First Appellate Court.
2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as
per their respective status before the Trial Court.
3. The Plaintiffs‟ case in a nutshell is that the suit
land corresponds to Hal Khata No.843, Plot Nos.1615, 1616
and 1617, in all measuring Ac 0.470 dec. which
corresponds to Sabik Khata No.100/3 and 101/3 in Mouza-
Goudagam (Inam land). One Durga Prasad Panda was in
possession of land measuring Ac.2.43 dec. in Sabik Khata
No. 175 of 37, which was settled in his name as per order
passed in C.P. No.506/1970. Out of the said land, Ac.0.50
dec of land in Sabik Khata No. 101/3 is part of the suit
land. After death of Durga Prasad Panda, his successors-in-
interest sold the land to different purchasers, who, in turn
transferred the land to others including the plaintiffs. As
such, one Jagadish Panigrahi sold Ac. 0.08 dec. in favour of
plaintiff No.1 vide RSD No.335 of 1990 appertaining to
Sabik Plot No.101/3. The plaintiffs claim to be in forcible
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13
possession of Ac. 0.06 decimals of land. As such, rest of the
land measuring Ac 0.36 dec. has been recorded in the name
of Srinibash Sahoo in rayati status.
4. Similarly, in so far as Sabik Khata No. 100/3 is
concerned, Subodh Panigrahi and Parsuram Behera having
purchased the land from Bansidhar Panda, sold Ac. 0.10
dec. to plaintiff no.2. The remaining Ac. 0.26 dec. of land
belonging to Bansidhar Panda was forcibly possessed by
plaintiff No.2.
5. Thus, in so far as the Sabik Plot No.101/3 is
concerned, the plaintiffs, being husband and wife, claimed
title over Ac.0.08 dec on the strength of RSD dated
03.12.1990 and by way of adverse possession in respect of
Ac. 0.06 dec. In so far as the Sabik Plot No.100/3 is
concerned, the plaintiffs claim title over Ac 0.10 dec. on the
strength of RSD dated 13.02.1990 and 20.07.1993 and over
0.26 dec by way of adverse possession.
6. The plaintiffs‟ further case is that they have
constructed a mill house as well as a residential house over
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13
the land belonging to Srinibas Sahoo which they have
encroached. During settlement operation, as the plaintiffs
could not produce the document in CP No.506 of 1970 the
Inam land was wrongly recorded in the name of State
Government in Khata No.843 as "Abadajogya Anabadi".
Taking advantage of such wrong recording, the Tahasildar,
Digapahandi initiated proceedings under the provisions of
the OPLE Act. Hence, the suit.
7. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 being State functionaries,
contested the suit and filed joint written statement. Their
case is that the suit lands are government lands recorded as
"Abadajogya Anabadi" in the Hal settlement. In view of
conclusion of settlement operations, the claim regarding
Inam status of the suit land is inconsequential. The
plaintiffs encroached upon the Government land but their
possession was never continuous. As such, the Tahasildar,
Digapahandi was authorized to take action against such
illegal encroachment.
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13
8. Basing on the rival pleadings, the Trial Court
framed the following issues for determination:
" (i) Whether the suit is maintainable?
(ii) Whether the plaintiffs have got cause of action to bring
the suit?
(iii) Whether the disputed site bearing hall (sic) khata
No.843, plot No.1615 of an area of Ac 0.260 dec, plot
No.1616 of an area Ac 0.110 dec and plot No.1617 of
an area Ac 0.100 dec of mouza Goudagam
corresponding to sabik survey No.100/3 and 101/3 of
mouza Goudagam has been settled in the name of
Durga Prasad Panda after extinguishment of its
inamdar status vide C.P. No.506/1970 having Khata
No.175/37 ?
(iv) Whether the subsequent alienation effected by
Radhanath Panda and his two minor sons namely,
Mohini Mohan Panda and Anamadheya Panda in
favour of Srinibash Sahoo in respect of land of Ac 0.50
cent in survey No.101/3 vide regd sale deed no.3815
of 1970 dated 31.07.1970 and alienation by Srinivas
Sahoo in favour of Balakrushna Behera in respect of
land of Ac 0.08 cent out of Ac 0.50 cent vide regd sale
deed no 746/1978 dated 17.03.1978, alienation by
the vendor Balakrushna Behera in favour of the
vendee Jagdish panigrahi in the regd sale deed
No.4623 of 1980 on 03.11.1980 in respect of land of Ac
0.80 cent, alienation by Jagdish Panigrahi in favour of
the vendee Gayatri Panigrahi in respect of land of Ac
0.80 cent vide regd sale deed No.335/1990, alienation
of land of Ac 0.03.9/16 cent by Bansidhar Panda in
favour of Subodha Panigrahi vide regd in respect of
survey no. 100/3, and alienation of land of an area of
Ac 0.10 cents in respect of survey no 100/03 by
Subodha Panigrahi and Parsuram Behera in favour of
Madhab Panigrahi (Plaintiff no. 2) vide regd sale deed
no 334/1990 on 13.02.90 and regd sale deed no
2979/93 dtd. 20.07.93 are valid and lawful ?
(v) Whether ROR prepared by the Government with
respect to the disputed site by attributing it to the
status of "Abadajogya Anabadi" is correct or not ?
(vi) Whether the plaintiff have been continuing in
possession over the disputed site for more than 30
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13
years and thereby perfected their title over the same
by way of an adverse possession ?
(vii) Whether notice issued by defendant no. 3 the then
Tahasildar, Digapahandi u/s. 4, 6, 7 of OPLE Act,
1972 for eviction of the plaintiff from the suit land is
correct or not ?
(viii) To what other relief/reliefs the plaintiffs are
entitled to ?
9. After considering the oral and documentary
evidence, the Trial Court held that the claim of title of Durga
Prasad Panda over the suit land could not be established by
the plaintiffs. Therefore, the subsequent sales made by him
and his successors have no validity. The trial Court
negatived the plea of adverse possession by holding that the
plaintiffs‟ entry over the suit land was in the capacity of
legitimate owner and in any case having entered into the
suit land in 1990, the required period of 30 years of
continuance and uninterrupted possession had not elapsed.
The suit was thus dismissed.
10. The First Appellate Court confirmed the
judgment of the Trial Court by holding that Ext-1 does not
whisper anything about the settlement of Sabik Khata
No.101/3 in favour of Durga Prasad Panda in rayati status.
Further Ext-12 being the „Yadast‟ discloses that during field
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13
inquiry no one was present for which the land was recorded
as "Abadajogya Anabadi". The First Appellate Court,
therefore, held that when the original source of title is not
established in favour of Durga Prasad Panda, the claim of
the plaintiffs fails automatically. It was further held that the
ROR was published on 30.04.1998 but the suit was filed on
23.12.2013. The Civil Court has jurisdiction regarding
correction of entries in the ROR upto three years. Therefore,
the suit having been filed after publication cannot be
entertained. On the plea of adverse possession the First
Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs could not establish
hostile animus against the true owner namely, the
Government. The appeal was thus dismissed.
11. Being further aggrieved, the plaintiffs have
preferred this Second Appeal, which was admitted on the
following substantial questions of law:
(1) Whether the Courts below by
misconstruing Ext.1, which is admissible in law
have erroneously recorded the finding that the
suit land has not been settled in favour of Durga
Prasad Panda, the vendor's vendor of the
Plaintiffs ?
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13
(2) Whether upon proper construction of that
Ext. 1, the Courts below ought to have held the
same to be the source of title which has
ultimately come to rest on the Plaintiffs by virtue
of valid and legal transactions?
12. Heard Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel
for the defendant-appellants and Mr. A.R. Dash, learned
Additional Government Advocate for the plaintiff-
respondents. Notice on defendant-respondent Nos. 4 to 13
having been dispensed with by order dated 16.04.2021,
there was no appearance from their side, though,
respondent Nos.7 and 11 having died during pendency of
the appeal, they were substituted by their LRs.
13. Mr. Mishra would argue that both the Courts
below committed gross error of law in not placing
importance on Ext-1, which clearly shows that the land in
question was settled in favour of Durga Prasad Panda. The
document having been obtained under the RTI Act is
admissible as per the settled position of law. Mr. Mishra
further submits, referring to the ROR marked Ext-1
standing in the name of Srinibash Sahoo that when the
State accepted the antecedent title of said Srinibash Sahoo
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13
and recorded his name under rayati status, how could it not
accept the claim of the plaintiffs with regard to the portion
of the land under the same Khata purchased by them. Mr.
Mishra further argued that only because the plaintiffs were
absent during field inquiry, the land could not have been
recorded as "Abadajogya Anabadi" even though there is a
residential house and mill standing over the same. On the
question of not filing the suit within three years from the
date of publication of the ROR, Mr. Mishra would argue that
the same cannot extinguish the title of the plaintiff under
any circumstances. It was also argued that as per the
settled position of law, decision of the Revenue Officer in a
proceeding under OPLE Act cannot operate as res-judicata
nor act as bar to decide the question of title in a suit
subsequently filed. On the question of adverse possession,
Mr. Mishra would argue that both the Courts below
proceeded on the misconceived notion that the plaintiffs had
claimed adverse possession against the State, though in fact
they were claiming adverse possession against their
respective vendors, who were impleaded as defendants in
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13
the suit. Mr. Mishra concludes his argument by submitting
that both the Courts below have proceeded on the erroneous
premises that the suit land corresponds only to Sabik plot
No.101/3 ignoring the fact that the plaintiffs also claim
adverse possession over a portion of Sabik Plot No.100/3.
14. Per contra, Mr. A.R. Dash, would argue that the
plaintiffs completely failed to prove that the Inam land was
converted to Rayati status in the so-called Certificate
Proceeding No.506/1970. Neither the order passed in the
said case was produced nor was the date on which the order
passed mentioned. Except Ext-1 and 12 there is no other
document to substantiate the claim of the plaintiff regarding
flow of title when the plaintiffs themselves claimed to have
entered upon the suit land on the basis of sale deed. The
same cannot be transformed into a claim of adverse
possession. The plaintiffs could not prove continuous
possession for more than 30 years by taking the plea of
tacking as they could not prove the antecedent title. Mr.
Dash finally submits that Inam land, by its very nature is
incapable of acquisition.
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13
15. It would be apt to consider the admissibility of
the certified copy of the Sabik ROR pertaining to Khata
No.175/37 on which the plaintiff relies heavily. According to
the defendant, the original ROR not having been produced
and the document in question having been obtained
through the RTI Act, is not admissible. There is no dispute
that the document admitted into evidence as Ext.1 is the
information obtained from the Public Information Officer,
Tahasil Office, Digapahandi purporting to be the Xerox copy
of ROR of Mouza- Goudagaon vide Khata No.175/37, which
was obtained from the Revenue Inspector, Nuapada. The
document was furnished to the plaintiff No.2 under a
forwarding letter dated 25.10.2011 and the documents itself
bears the seal and signature of the Public Information
Officer. Whether a document obtained under RTI Act is
admissible or not has been examined by different High
Courts. In the case of Munsi Ram and others vs. Balkar
Singh and Others 1 it was held that such a document is a
public document and would require no further
(2016) 182 PLR 526
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13
corroboration as per Section 77 of the Evidence Act. The
Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Narayan Singh
vs. Kallaram @ Kalluram Khushwaha2 held that certified
copy of the document obtained under RTI Act is covered
Section 65 of the Evidence Act and there is no need to
compare the same with the originals.
16. After going through the cited judgments, this
Court finds itself in respectful agreement with the
proposition laid down therein and therefore, holds that the
document marked Ext.1 is legally admissible.
17. Another preliminary objection to the plaintiffs‟
suit was raised by the State defendant to the effect that
action having been taken against the plaintiffs under the
OPLE Act, the suit would be hit by the principles of res
judicata as also barred under Section 16 of the OPLE Act.
This question is no longer res integra having already been
decided by this Court in the case of State of Orissa vs.
2015 (2) MPLJ
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13
Bhanu Mali (Dead) Nurpa Bewa and others 3, wherein the
substantial question was as follows:
"Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to disturb
the finding arrived at which is an order of eviction
under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment
Act on the facts and circumstances of the case?"
This Court in the cited case considered the
provision under Section 16 of the Act and the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case reported in Govt. of Andhra
Pradesh v. Thummala Krishna Rao and Anr.4 and Life
Insurance Corporation of India vs. M/s. India Automobiles
& Co. & others5 to hold that the decision of the Revenue
Officer in the proceeding under the OPLE Act can neither
operate as res judicata nor Section-16 thereof can stand as
a bar relating to the question of title in a subsequent Civil
Suit.
18. From the rival contentions advanced on behalf of
the parties it is apparent that the plaintiffs base their claim
of title on the basis of the sale deeds marked Exts. 5, 6 & 7.
Additionally, they claim to have perfected their title by
(1996) SCC Online Ori 23
AIR 1982 SC 1081
AIR 1991 SC 884
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13
adverse possession in respect of some other lands. Ext.5 is a
sale deed executed by one Jagdish Panigrahi in favour of
Gayatri Panigrahi (plaintiff No.1) on 13.02.1990 transferring
Ac. 0.08 dec. of land on consideration of Rs.25,000/-.
Similarly Ext.6 is a sale deed executed by one Subodh
Panigrahi on 13.02.1990 in favour of Madhab Panigrahi
(plaintiff No.2) transferring Ac. 0.03 3/16 dec. of land for
consideration. Ext.7 is a sale deed executed by one
Parsuram Behera on 19.04.1993 in favour of Madhab
Panigrahi (plaintiff No.2) transferring Ac. 0.06 6/16 dec. of
land for consideration. Thus, the plaintiffs claim title over
Ac. 0.08 dec. by virtue of Ext.5 and Ac. 0.10 dec. by virtue
of Exts.6 & 7 taken together. The State has questioned the
antecedent title, inasmuch as according to it, the plaintiffs‟
vendor and in turn his vendor, never possessed any
alienable title in respect of the suit properties. In this
context, the plaintiffs have heavily relied upon the relevant
extract of the Sabik ROR (marked Ext.1) in respect of Sabik
Khata No. 175/37. The plaintiffs claim that the land under
said Khata was Iman land in total measuring 2.43 dec.,
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13
which was settled in the name of Durga Prasad Panda as
per Certificate Proceeding No. 506 of 1970. The suit land
corresponds to one of the three plots under the said Khata
namely, Plot No. 101/3 and also 100/3. On perusal of
Ext.1, it is revealed that in so far as Plot No.101/2 is
concerned, the same is specifically stated to have been
settled in Rayati status in favour of Durga Prasad Panda
vide C.P. No. 506/1970. Similar endorsement is made in
respect of Sabik Plot No.101/4. In so far as Plot No. 101/3
is concerned, the same is mentioned as Inam land and in
the remarks column mentioned „Faisalinama‟. The meaning
and implication of „Faisalinama‟ has not been stated by any
of the parties. Nonetheless, prima facie, there being absence
of specific endorsement regarding settlement, it cannot be
definitely said that said plot was settled in favour of Durga
Prasad Panda in Rayati status.
19. Be that as it may.
20. It is not disputed that Plot No. 101/3 measured
Ac. 0.50 dec. After death of Durga Prasad Panda his
successor-in-interest, Radhanath and his sons executed
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13
RSD on 31.07.1970 (Ext.2) in favour of one Srinibas Sahoo
for the entire extent of Ac.0.50 dec. Srinibas Sahoo, in turn
executed RSD on 17.03.1978 (Ext.3) in favour of one
Balakrushna Behera transferring Ac.0.08 dec. Said
purchased land was in turn transferred to one Jagdish
Panigrahi vide RSD dated 03.11.1980 (Ext.4). Jagdish
Panigrahi sold said purchased land of Ac.0.08 dec. in favour
of Gayatri Panigrahi (plaintiff No.1) vide RSD dated
13.02.1990 (Ext.5), Thus, Srinibas Sahoo was still left with
Ac.0.42 dec. land. Interestingly Ac.0.36 dec. out of the said
land was recorded in his name in Hal settlement as per ROR
published on 30.04.1998 (Ext.21). What happened to the
remaining 0.06 dec. out of Ac.0.42 dec. has not been clearly
stated by any of the parties though the plaintiff claims to
have forcibly possessed the same. This plea of forcible
possession resulting in prescription of title shall be
considered later. For the moment it would suffice to note
that Ac. 0.36 dec. of land appertaining to Sabik Plot
No.101/3 was recorded in the name of one Srinibas Sahoo
in the Hal settlement. This implies, notwithstanding the
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13
endorsement in the Sabik ROR marked Ext.1, the State has
accepted Srinibas Sahoo‟s title at least over a major portion
of Sabik Plot No. 101/3, i.e., to the extent of Ac.0.036 dec.
Therefore, the State cannot question the title of the plaintiffs
at least in respect of A.0.08 dec. of land transferred by
Srinibas Sahoo vide Ext.5 from out of the same Sabik Plot.
It goes without saying that the State cannot adopt different
standards for different tenants. By necessary implication
and conduct, the State must be held to have accepted the
title of the original owner, namely Durga Prasad Panda over
the plot in question. There is thus, no way by which the
plaintiff‟s claim of title on the basis of the Ext.5 can be
denied. Be it noted that the State does not dispute the
possession of the plaintiffs.
21. The State relies upon the „Yadast‟ report, marked
Ext.12, wherein the land was recorded as "Abadajogya
Anabadi". It is stated that the plaintiffs were not present
during field enquiry and therefore, could not prove their
title. This appears to be bald statement as, merely by
recording the absence of the land owner at the time of field
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13
enquiry, his title acquired through lawful means cannot be
nullified. Secondly, the term "Abadajogya Anabadi‟, loosely
translated, would mean habitable but uninhabited land.
Surprisingly, the ROR prepared on the basis of such Yadast
in the name of the State, i.e. Ext.8 mentions the kisam as
Mill Ghara(Mill house). Further, the Yadast relating to the
land of Srinibas Sahoo on the basis of which ROR was
published in his name (Ext.21) reveals that he being present
during field enquiry, produced the relevant documents and
was found to be in possession, for which the plots were
recorded in his name. Thus, as it transpires from the above
documentary evidence, only because of the absence of the
plaintiffs at the time of field enquiry the suit plots were
recorded in the name of the State. In his cross-
examination, plaintiff No.2 being examined as P.W.-1 has
stated under paragraph-49 that during settlement operation
he was outside his village. In other words, a plausible
explanation was offered for his absence, which has not been
rebutted. In any case, as between the sale deed, which this
Court has held to be valid and the Yadast followed by the
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13
ROR (Ext.8), obviously the former would have more value in
view of the well settled proposition of law that entries in the
revenue records cannot create or extinguish title.
22. Coming to sale deeds Exts. 6 & 7, it is stated
that one Bansidhar Panda was in possession over Ac. 0.36
dec. of land relating to Sabik Plot No. 100/3. Out of such
land, he sold Ac.0.03 3/16 to Subodh Panigrahi, who in
turn sold the same to plaintiff No.2 vide RSD marked Ext.6.
Bansidhar Panda also sold Ac.0.6 6/16 dec. to Parsuram
Behera, who in turn sold the same to plaintiff No.2 vide RSD
marked Ext.7. Thus, in all the plaintiff No.2 purchased land
measuring Ac.0.10 dec. This land corresponds to Sabik Plot
No. 100/3, which was possessed by Bansidhar Panda.
Nothing has been placed on record to show as to how said
Bansidhar Panda acquired title. But then fact remains that
he sold the land to Subodh Panigrahi and Parsuram Behera
by executing registered sale deeds. Both of them sold their
respective purchased lands to plaintiff No.2. The Yadast
marked Ext.12 is in respect of the Plot No.100/3 part to the
extent of Ac.0.260 dec. and Ac.0.090 dec. and Ac.101/3 to
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13
the extent of 0.100, all of which were recorded in favour of
the State as "Abadajogya Anabadi". This Court already held
that mere absence of plaintiffs at the time of field enquiry
cannot nullify their title. It must be kept in mind that the
RSDs vide Exts. 6 & 7 carry a presumption of correctness in
the absence of any rebuttal evidence. Therefore, it cannot be
said that the plaintiffs did not acquire any title in respect of
Ac.0.10 dec. on the strength of Exts.6 & 7. Both the Courts
below appear to have lost sight of the aforementioned vital
aspects and disbelieved the flow of title from the original
owners to the persons who acquired title in between.
23. Both the Courts below have held that the
plaintiff not having sought for correction of the entries in
the ROR within three years of its publication, the same have
become final and cannot be gone into by the Civil Court.
There is no dispute that the ROR was published on
30.12.2013. What both the courts below seem to have lost
sight of is, the fact that the suit of the plaintiffs for
declaration is based on antecedent title, which this Court
has found to exist in their favour. It is also accepted by the
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13
defendants that the plaintiffs are in possession. The
question is, whether recording of the land in the name of the
State in the ROR can extinguish the title accrued in favour
of the plaintiffs. The answer can obviously be in the
negative. It is fairly well settled in law that notwithstanding
the lapse of the stipulated period under the Odisha Survey
and Settlement Act, a plaintiff‟s suit based on antecedent
title and possession cannot be rejected as the ROR by itself
does not create or extinguish title. Similar view was taken
by this Court in the case of Basanti @ Basantirani Jena vs.
State of Odisha (2016) Supp.1 OLR 129. The relevant
observations made in the judgment are reproduced below:
"11 Law is fairly well settled that in a suit based on
antecedent title, when the Court finds the same in
favour of the plaintiff and also finds his possession
to have been there over the suit land, even if he does
not call in question the wrong recording of the suit
land in the settlement operation within a period of
three years as prescribed in Article 58 of the
Limitation Act and also as prescribed in Section 42
of the OSS Act, he cannot be shown the door of exit
and cannot be non-suited on that ground, on the
face of the settled law that the entry in the record of
right does neither create title in favour of someone
who in fact does not have it nor does extinguish the
title of the true owner in respect of the said land. So,
in that view of the matter when the title holder
continues to remain in possession of the property
despite of said wrong recording his non filing of the
suit within a period of three years from the date of
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13
publication of the said erroneous ROR cannot
extinguish his right, title and interest over the
property and as such he does not become disentitled
to continue to be in possession as of that.
The aforesaid discussion and reasons provide
the answer to the substantial question of law
accordingly and it runs in favour of the plaintiff-
appellant"
This Court is therefore, unable to concur with
the finding of both the courts below in this regard.
24. It would be proper to examine the plea of
adverse possession raised by the plaintiff. According to
them, in so far as Sabik Plot No. 101/3 is concerned, they
acquired title over Ac.0.08 dec. by virtue of the RSD dated
13.12.1990 and forcibly possessed Ac.0.06 lands belonging
to Srinibas Sahoo. This Court has perused the evidence of
both P.Ws.1 & 2 in this regard along with the pleadings. The
plaintiffs have not come up with a definite case as to when
exactly they started forcibly possessing the aforementioned
land. It was argued that they forcibly possessed the land
from the date of their purchase of the adjoining land. This is
an unacceptable argument for the reason that it can
scarcely be believed that their vendor would deliver
possession of the lands sold and allow them to forcibly
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13
possess another portion simultaneously. That apart,
nothing has been placed on record to show that the said Ac.
0.06 dec. was recorded in the name of Srinibas Sahoo
rather, the evidence shows that only Ac.0.36 dec. was
recorded in the name of Srinibas Sahoo. It cannot therefore,
be held that he was the true owner in respect of Ac.0.06
dec. said to be under forcible possession of the plaintiff.
25. The plaintiffs further claim that in so far as
Sabik Plot No. 100/3 is concerned, after sale of Ac.0.10 dec.
of land, the vendor, Bansidhar Panda was left with Ac.0.26
dec. which was forcibly possessed by them. This again is a
somewhat non-specific and vague plea inasmuch as it has
not been conclusively shown that Bansidhar Panda was the
lawful owner of Ac.0.26 dec. of land. Moreover, since when
and in what manner the plaintiffs entered into such land, if
at all, has not been demonstrated in the least. It has simply
been stated that the plaintiffs forcibly possessed such land.
This can hardly satisfy the ingredients of adverse
possession. The plaintiffs have made a desperate attempt to
prove adverse possession by impleading the so called land
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13
owners as defendants, who supported their stand. This is a
plea that can be considered only to be rejected for the
reason that the moment the true owner supports the plea of
forcible possession of his land by another person, the
question of hostile animus automatically falls to the ground.
This Court thus finds that two essential ingredients of
adverse possession namely, Corpus Possidendi as well as
Animus Possidendi entirely lacking.
26. From a conspectus of analysis of facts, evidence
and the contentions raised, this Court finds that the
plaintiffs have been able to establish their title in respect of
the Sabik Plot No. 101/3 to the extent of Ac.0.08 dec. on the
strength of RSDs dated 13.12.1990 (Ext.5) and in respect of
Sabik Plot No. 100/3 to the extent of Ac.0.10 dec. on the
strength of RSDs dated 13.02.1990 and 20.07.1993 (Exts. 6
and 7). This Court further finds that the claim of adverse
possession over Ac.0.06 dec relating to Sabik Plot No. 101/3
and Ac.0.26 dec. of Sabik Plot No. 100/3 has no legs to
stand. The impugned judgments therefore, warrant
Designation: Personal Assistant
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 07-Apr-2025 18:07:13
interference appropriately. The substantial question of law
framed is answered accordingly.
27. In the result the appeal is allowed in part. The
impugned judgments are set aside. The suit of the plaintiffs
is decreed in part by declaring their right, title and interest
and possession in respect of the lands covered under Exts.
5, 6 & 7. No order as to costs.
..............................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 5th April, 2025/ A.K. Rana, P.A./ Puspanjali, Sr. Steno
