Orissa High Court
Chakradhar Misha(Dead) And vs State Of Orissa on 14 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.A. No.209 of 1999
(In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908)
Chakradhar Misha(dead) and .... Appellants
others
-versus-
State of Orissa, represented .... Respondent
through Collector, Keonjhar
For Appellants - Mr. D.P. Mohanty, Advocate
For Respondent - Mr. G. Mohanty,
Learned Standing Counsel for the
State(For the Respondent No.1)
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA
Date of Hearing :15.10.2025 :: Date of Judgment :14.11.2025
A.C. Behera, J. This 2nd Appeal has been preferred against the confirming
Judgment.
2. The appellants in this 2nd Appeal were the plaintiffs before the
Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.27 of 1988 and the appellants before
the 1st Appellate Court in the first appeal vide T.A. No.12 of 1993.
The respondent in this 2nd Appeal, i.e., State was the defendant
before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.27 of 1988 and respondent
before the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.12 of 1993.
S.A. No.209 of1999
// 2 //
3. The suit properties described in Schedule-A of the Plaint in the
suit vide T.S. No.27 of 1988 are two plots, i.e., A.0.09 decimals out of A
1.09 decimals of Plot No.1575 under Khata No.481 and A. 0.03 decimals
out of A. 0.09 decimals of Plot No.1563 under Khata No.482 in Mouza-
Attopur-Badapokharital under Keonjhargarh Police Station in the district
of Keonjhar.
4. According to the averments made by the plaintiffs in their plaint,
the suit properties described in Schedule-"A" of the plaint corresponds to
Sabik Plot No.47 under Sabik Khata No.5 of village-Hatiatanagara. The
area of Sabik Plot No.47 under Sabik Khata No.5 was A.1.16 decimals.
Out of that A.1.16 decimals of Sabik Plot No.47, State
Government acquired A.0.23 decimals for Keonjhar Jail. After
acquisition of A.0.23 decimals, out of A. 1.16 decimals from Sabik Plot
No.47 for Keonjhar Jail, the rest land of that Sabik Plot No.47 was
A.0.93 decimals. One Udia Jena was the owner of Sabik Plot No.47
under Sabik Khata No.5.
The plaintiffs are two brothers. Plaintiff no.2 is the elder brother
and plaintiff no.1 is the younger brother. After the death of the father of
the plaintiffs, the plaintiff no.2 was the Karta of their joint family.
// 3 //
The recorded owner of Sabik Plot No.47 under Sabik Khata No.5,
i.e., Udia Jena sold the aforesaid A.0.93 decimals of plot Sabik Plot
No.47(which was with Udia Jena after acquisition of A.0.23 decimals
from that Plot for Keonjhar Jail) to the plaintiffs on dated 06.01.1959
through registered sale deed and the said sale deed was executed in
favour of plaintiff no.2 as a Karta of the family of the plaintiffs. That
purchased A.0.93 decimals of Sabik Plot No.47 was mutated in favour of
the plaintiffs through mutation case No.591 of 1959 and RoR of that A.
0.93 decimals was prepared in their names after mutation.
As per amicable family partition between the plaintiffs, the said
purchased A.0.93 decimals of Sabik Plot No.47 had fallen in the share of
the plaintiff no.1. For which, plaintiff no.1 is the owner of that A. 0.93
decimals including the suit properties. Because, the suit properties are
part of that A. 0.93 decimals of Sabik Plot No.47. Though, the plaintiff
no.1 is the exclusive owner of the suit properties, still then, for the
proper adjudication of the suit, the plaintiff no.2 has been arrayed as a
party in the suit as plaintiff no.2.
During Hal Settlement of the year 1982, out of the purchased land,
i.e., A.0.93 decimals of Sabik Plot No.47, Hal RoR was prepared under
Khata No.206, Plot No.1579 for an area A. 0.61 decimals in the name of
the plaintiffs and in the said Hal settlement, the Village- Hatiatanagara as
// 4 //
per Sabik Settlement was changed to Village/Mouza-Attopur-
Badapokharital under Keonjhargarh Police Station in the district of
Keonjhar. Though the plaintiffs are the owners and in possession over A.
0.93 decimals of land from Sabik Plot No.47 under Sabik Khata No.5,
but, only A. 0.61 decimals therefrom has been recorded in their names
vide Hal Plot No.1579 under Hal Khata No.206 and the shortage area
thereof, i.e., A.0. 32 decimals has been erroneously included in the Plot
No.1575 under Hal Khata No.481 and Hal Plot No.1563 under Hal
Khata No.482 in the name of the State and Bibekananta Pattnaik, but, the
ownership and possession of the same is with the plaintiffs.
So, the plaintiffs filed a suit vide T.S. No.20 of 1982 in the court
of the learned Sub-ordinate, Judge, Keonjhar against the Superintendent
District Jail, Keonjhar and Sri Bibekananda Pattnaik along with others.
That, in the said suit vide T.S. No.20 of 1982, a Civil Court
Commissioner submitted a report stating that, the area of Hal Plot
No.1579 is A. 0.54 decimals, but, not A. 0.61 decimals, for which, there
is shortage of A.0.39 decimals, but, not A.0.32 decimals.
Out of the said shortage area, i.e., A.0.39 decimals, A.0.03
decimals has been included erroneously in Hal Plot No.1563, A. 0.03
decimals has been included erroneously in Hal Plot No.1578 and A. 0.24
// 5 //
decimal has been included erroneously in Hal Plot No.1577 and A. 0.09
decimals has been included erroneously in Hal Plot No.1575.
Subsequent to the filing of Amin Commissioner's report in the suit
vide T.S. No.20 of 1982, the said suit was withdrawn by the plaintiffs
with a liberty to file an another suit after proper compliances of the
statutory provisions of Section 80 of the C.P.C.
The disputes of the plaintiffs with Bibekananda Pattnaik in respect
of A. 0.24 decimals of Plot No.1577 and A. 0.03 decimals of Plot
No.1575, i.e., in total in respect of A. 0.27 decimals was resolved finally.
So, the disputes of the plaintiffs in respect of A. 0.03 decimals of
Hal Plot No.1563 and A.0.09 decimals of Hal Plot No.1575, i.e., in total
A.0.12 decimals remained alive with the defendant/State.
When, the Superintendent, District Jail, Keonjhar through its
employees put a fence forcibly on the North of suit Plot No.1575,
damaging fence of the plaintiffs, then, in order to file the suit, the
plaintiffs served statutory notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C. on dated
05.04.1988, on the defendant/State through its Collector and after
complying the provisions of Section 80 of the C.P.C., they(plaintiffs
filed the suit vide T.S. No.27 of 1988 against the defendant/State
praying for a declaration that, they(plaintiffs) have right, title and interest
// 6 //
over the suit properties and to declare that, the defendant/State has no
right, title and interest on the same and to direct the defendant/State for
correction of the RoR of the suit properties from the name of the
State/defendant to the names of the plaintiffs and to confirm their
possession on the same, in alternative recover the possession of the
same, if, they(plaintiffs) are found to be dispossessed from the suit
properties during the pendency of the suit along with other reliefs, to
which, they(plaintiffs) are entitled for.
The defendant/State contested the suit of plaintiffs by filing the
written statement taking its stands that, the plaintiffs have no cause of
action for filing the suit. The suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation,
as the suit has not been filed within stipulated time for correction of the
RoR. The suit of the plaintiffs is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties,
i.e., the jail authority as well as to the general public in respect of Hal
Plot No. 1563. The suit is bad for non-service of valid notice under
Section 80 of the C.P.C. The defendant/State also denied the averments
made in the plaint of the plaintiffs and disputed to the ownership and
possession of the plaintiffs over the suit properties.
The specific stands/pleas of the State/defendant in its written
statement was that, the suit properties are the part and parcel of "Jail
Garden" of District Jail, Keonjhar and "Smasana." The Hal Plot No.1563
// 7 //
corresponds to part of Sabaik Plot No.47. The status of suit Hal Plot
No.1563 under Hal Khata No.482 is "Smasana" and the same has been
recorded in "Sarbasadharan" khata of Government.
Hal Plot No.1575 under Hal Khata No.481 corresponds to part of
Sabik Plot Nos.46/48, 47/89 and 47 and its present status in the Hal RoR
is "Rakshit".
Hal Plot No.1563 under Hal Khata No.482 being "Smasana", the
same had/has been using by the community at large, in which, the
plaintiffs have no interest and possession.
So far as suit Plot No.1575 is concerned, the same is under the
possession of District Jail, Keonjhar having been fenced properly by the
Jail Authority. For which, the plaintiffs have no ownership and
possession in the suit properties, but, the defendant/State is the owner of
the same. If it is assumed that, the suit properties belong to the plaintiffs,
still then, when the Jail Authorities of District Jail, Keonjhar and the
public on behalf of the State are in possession over the same for a long
time, for which, the defendant/State has acquired title over the suit
properties on the basis of its long and continuous possession. So, title of
the plaintiffs over the same do not survive. Therefore, the suit of the
plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed against the defendant/State with cost.
// 8 //
5. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies
between the parties, altogether nine numbers of issues were framed by
the learned Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.27 of 1988 and the said
issues are:-
Issues
1. Is the suit maintainable under law?
2. Have the plaintiffs any cause of action to bring the suit
against the defendant/State?
3. Is the suit barred by law of limitation?
4. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
5. Is the suit bad for non-service of valid notice under
Section 80 of the C.P.C.?
6. Is the suit grossly undervalued?
7. Have the plaintiffs or their predecessors any right, title
and interest over the suit land and were in possession
of the same?
8. To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled?
9. Whether the defendant/State has acquired right, title
and interest over the suit land by adverse possession?
6. In order to substantiate the aforesaid reliefs, sought for by the
plaintiffs in the suit vide T.S. No.27 of 1988 against the defendant/State,
the plaintiffs examined altogether three numbers of witnesses including
the plaintiff no.1 as P.W.1 and relied upon the documents vide Exts.1 to
14.
On the contrary, in order to nullify/defeat the suit of the plaintiffs,
the defendant examined one witness, i.e., one Amin as D.W.1 and relied
upon the documents vide Exts.A to K on its behalf.
// 9 //
7. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials,
documents and evidence available in the record, the learned Trial Court
answered issue nos.7, 4, 2, 1 and 8 in favour of the defendant/State and
against the plaintiffs and answered issue nos.3, 5, 6 and 9 in favour of
the plaintiffs and basing upon the findings and observations made by the
learned Trial Court in issue nos.7, 4, 2, 1 and 8 against the plaintiffs and
in favour of the defendant/State, the learned Trial Court dismissed the
suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.27 of 1988 on contest against the
defendant/State with cost as per its judgment and decree dated
07.01.1993 and 29.01.1993 respectively assigning the reasons that,
"The plaintiffs have become failure to establish the identity of the
suit properties and they(plaintiffs) are not able to establish their
ownership over the suit properties. Because, they(plaintiffs) have failed
to establish that, they have purchased the suit properties.
When, the present status of the suit Hal Plot No.1563 under Khata
No.481 is "Smasana" and when, the plaintiffs have claimed A. 0.03
decimals out of A 0.09 decimals from suit Hal Plot No.1563, for which,
the said suit Hal Plot No.1563 being the communal land as a
"Smasana" the villagers Mouza-Attopur-Badapokharital under
Keonjhargarh Police Station in the district of Keonjhar are the
necessary parties. Therefore, in absence of the villagers of Mouza-
// 10 //
Attopur-Badapokharital, the suit of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit
Hal Plot No.1563 is not entertainable."
8. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree of
the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.27 of 1988 passed
by the learned Trial Court, the plaintiffs challenged the same by
preferring the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.12 of 1993 being the appellants
against the defendant/State arraying the (defendant/State) as respondent.
9. After hearing, from both the sides, the learned 1st Appellate Court
dismissed that 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.12 of 1993 of the plaintiffs on
contest as per its judgment and decree dated 02.04.1999 and 16.04.1999
respectively concurring/confirming the findings and observations made
by the learned Trial Court.
10. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the
dismissal of the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.12 of 1993 of the plaintiffs
passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court as per its judgment and decree
dated 02.04.1999 and 16.04.1999 respectively, the plaintiffs challenged
the same preferring this 2nd appeal being the appellants against the
defendant/State arraying the defendant/State as respondent.
// 11 //
11. When, during the pendency of this 2nd appeal, both the
appellants(plaintiffs) expired, then, their legal heirs have been
substituted in their places as appellants.
12. This 2nd Appeal was admitted on formulation of the following
substantial questions of law and the said substantial questions of law
are : -
(i) Whether, the concurrent findings of the learned trial
court and 1st appellate court that, the plaintiffs failed to
establish the identity of the suit properties in both the
suit plots are acceptable under law?
(ii) Whether, the findings and observations made by the
learned trial court and 1st appellate court that, the
plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit properties, as
they(plaintiffs) have failed to establish that, they have
purchased the suit properties are sustainable under
law?
13. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the appellants
and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
14. When, both the aforesaid formulated substantial questions of law
are inter-linked having ample nexus with each other according to the
findings and observations made by the leaned trial court and 1 st appellate
court in their respective judgments and decrees on the basis of the
pleadings and evidence of the parties, then, both the formulated
// 12 //
substantial questions of law are taken up together analogously for their
discussions hereunder :-
15. The suit properties described in Schedule-A of the plaint are A.
0.09 decimals out of A. 1.09 decimals of Hal Plot No.1575 under Hal
Khata No.481 and A 0.03 decimals out of A. 0.09 decimals of Hal Plot
No.1563 under Hal Khata No.482.
Both the suit Hal Khatas vide Hal Khata Nos.481 and 482 have
been recorded in the Hal Settlement in the name of the
State/Government.
The Kisam of the suit Hal Plot No.1563 is "Smasana".
As per Law Lexicon, the meaning of "Smasana" is, a place set
apart, in which, the dead are burned(cremation ground).
"Smasana" is a communal land.
16. The nature and character of "Smasana" has already been clarified
by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decision : -
In a case between Jagpal Singh and others vrs. State of Punjab and
others : reported in 2011(I) OJR-648(S.C.) that, cremation ground
or graveyard etc. are communal land, in which, the community has
interest.
// 13 //
17. When, the suit Hal Plot No.1563 is situated in Mouza-Attopur-
Badapokharital and when the present status of the suit Hal Plot No.1563
in the RoR is "Smasana" and when a "Smasana" by its very nature
communal land, for which, the villagers of suit Mouza-Attopur-
Badapokharital are the necessary parties to the suit.
Therefore, prior to the filing of the suit by the plaintiffs in respect
of the suit Hal Plot No.1563, compliance of the provisions to Order-1,
Rule-8 of the C.P.C. was necessary by them (plaintiffs).
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified
in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Stephen Issac vrs. State of Kerala and
others : reported in 2024(4) Civil Court Cases-171(Kerala) that,
when, there is sameness of interest or community interest in respect
of the suit land, in that case, the pre-requisite of compliance the
Order-1, Rule-8 of the C.P.C., as the representative character suit, is
required to be complied with by the plaintiffs before filing the suit.
(ii) In a case between Millan Kumar Giri and Twelve others vrs.
State of Odisha and Eleven others : reported in 2021(2) OJR-371
that, suit for declaration of title was filed by the plaintiff over the suit
land, recorded as Road in the RoR. The said RoR was published on
dated 10.10.1988, but, the suit was filed in the year 1995. Held,
when the suit was filed without complying the provisions of Order-1,
Rule-8 of the C.P.C., the suit in respect of the suit land is rightly
dismissed, because, the suit land is the communal nature of land, in
which, community has interest.
// 14 //
18. Here, in this suit/appeal at hand, when the present Kisam in the
RoR of the suit Hal Plot No.1563 is "Smasana" and when, as per the
ratio of the decision reported in 2011(I) OJR-648(S.C.), "Smasana" is a
communal nature land, in which, the entire villagers of suit village-
Attopur-Badapokharital has sameness of interest, then at this juncture, in
view of the propositions of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid
decisions, the suit of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit Hal Plot
No.1563(whose existing Kisam in the RoR is "Smasana") without prior
compliance of the provisions of Order-1, Rule-8 of the C.P.C. was not
maintainable. Because, the villagers of Mouza-Attopur-Badapokharital
were the necessary parties in the said suit in respect of Hal Suit Plot
No.1563, but, they(villagers of Attopur-Badapokharital) have not been
arrayed as parties to the suit.
Therefore, the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs by the learned
trial court in respect of the suit Hal Plot No.1563 and the confirmation to
the said part in respect of the suit Hal Plot No.1563 by the learned 1st
appellate court cannot be held as erroneous.
For which, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial
court in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs in respect of the Hal Plot
No.1563 and confirmation of the said part of the judgment of the learned
// 15 //
trial court in respect of suit Hal Plot No.1563 by the learned 1st appellate
court in T.A. No.12 of cannot be held as erroneous.
19. So far as the suit of the plaintiffs in respect of the rest part of the
suit properties, i.e., A. 0.09 decimals out of A.1.09 decimals of suit Hal
Plot No.1575 under suit Hal Khata No.481 is concerned;
it is the specific plea/case of the State/defendant that,
"the Jail Authorities are in possession over the entire area of suit
Hal Plot No.1575 including the suit land, i.e., A. 0.09 decimals of that
suit Hal Plot No.1575 since long, for which, the State has become the
owner of the same, in which, the plaintiffs have no interest or
possession."
20. At the time of cross-examination to the Plaintiff No.1(P.W.1,
Chakradhara Mishra) on behalf of the defendant/State, it was suggested
on behalf of the defendant/State to the plaintiff no.1(P.W.1, Chakradhara
Mishra) that,
"the defendant/State has acquired right, title and interest over the
said suit land by remaining in possession over the same for more than
twelve years continuously with the knowledge of the plaintiffs, to which,
plaintiff no.1(P.W.1) Chakradhar Mishra denied."
// 16 //
21. The above suggestions of the defendant/State to the plaintiff
no.1(P.W.1, Chakradhara Mishra) on behalf of the State/defendant
during the trial of the suit on the basis of the pleadings of the
State/defendant is ultimately going to show that,
"the defendant/State has claimed title in respect of A. 0.09
decimals of suit Hal Plot No.1575 against the plaintiffs by way of
adverse possession."
22. It is the settled propositions of law that, plea/claim of adverse
possession by the defendant/State against the plaintiffs in respect of A.
0.09 decimals of suit Hal Plot No.1575 is an indirect admission of the
State/defendant to the identity of the suit land, i.e., A. 0.09 decimals in
suit Hal Plot No.1575 as well as to the ownership of the plaintiffs over
the same.
Because, the plea of adverse possession of a defendant over the
suit properties against the plaintiffs itself is an admission to the identity
of the suit properties as well as to the ownership of its
opponents/plaintiffs on the same.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified
in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Jagat Singh and others vrs. Srikishan
Dass and others : reported in 2008(3) CCC-173(P&H) that,
// 17 //
Once a plea of adverse possession is raised by the defendant,
it pre-supposes the title of the plaintiff over the suit property.
Because, title of the plaintiff over the suit properties is
deemed to be admitted by the defendant through the plea of
adverse possession.
Therefore, the argument raised by the defendant that, the
property is not identifiable falls to the ground.
(ii) In a case between Pappayammal vrs. Palanisamy and Ors. :
reported in 2005(3) CCC-167 (Madras)--A party can plead
adverse possession, when he admits that, other party has got
title.
(iii) In a case between Gurubax Singh (dead) by LRs. vrs.
Karnail Singh : reported in 2008(4) CCC-239(P&H)--The
plea of adverse possession of the defendant necessarily
implies the admission of the title of the plaintiff.
(iv) In a case between Sultan and Ors. vrs. Kasturi and Ors. :
reported in 2005(4) Civil Law Times-378(P&H) --Adverse
Possession--Plea of adverse possession of the defendant is
an indirect admission of ownership of plaintiff. (Para-8).
23. In view of the propositions of law enunciated in the aforesaid
decisions, the concurrent findings of the learned trial court and learned
1st appellate court that, the suit land, i.e., A.0.09 decimals of suit Hal Plot
No.1575 is not identifiable, cannot be sustainable under law, because, as
per law, the defendant/State has claimed its title over that A. 0.09
decimals of Hal Plot No.1575 through adverse possession admitting the
identity of the said suit land, i.e., A. 0.09 decimals of Hal Suit Plot
No.1575 as well the ownership of the plaintiffs on the same.
24. That apart, as per law, the State/defendant is estopped/precluded
under law to take the plea of adverse possession against its own citizens
// 18 //
like plaintiffs in respect of any suit property including A.0.09 decimals
of suit Hal Plot No.1575.
On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified
in the ratio of following decisions:-
(i) In a case between State of Haryana vrs. Mukesh Kumar :
reported in (2011) 10 SCC-404 that, State Government cannot take
the plea of adverse possession to grab the property of its citizens. If
the protectors of the properties of the citizens will become grabbers
of properties of the citizens, such plea will have no protection for the
State.
(ii) In a case between State of Haryana and another vrs. Amin
Lal(Since Deceased) Through His Lrs and others : reported in
2024(4) CCC-222(S.C.) that, State cannot claim adverse possession
over property of its own citizens.
Allowing State to appropriate private property through
adverse possession would undermine constitutional rights of citizens
and erode public trust in government.
(iii) In a case between Vidya Devi vrs. The State of Himachal
Pradesh and others : reported in 2020(1) Civil Court Cases-
718(S.C.) that, State being a welfare State cannot be permitted to
take plea of adverse possession.
(iv) In a case between Indira vrs. Arumugam and another :
reported in AIR 1999(S.C.) 1549 or (1998) 1 SCC-614 that, the State
cannot take plea of adverse possession.
(v) In a case between Smt. Karnam Annapurna and others vrs.
Collector, Gajapati ad another : in RSA No.312 of 2015 decided on
10.10.2022 that, no Government departments should be permitted to
perfect their title by way of adverse possession.
// 19 //
(vi) In a case between Vidya Devi vrs. State of Himanchal
Pradesh and others : reported in 2020(1) OJR-660(S.C.) that, State
cannot be permitted to perfect its title over land by invoking doctrine
of adverse possession to grab property of its own citizens.
(vii) In a case between Karnam Annapurna and others vrs.
Collector, Gajapati and another : reported in 2023(1) CLR-79(Para
Nos.13 and 15) that, defendant, who are State (Forest Department)
cannot be permitted to perfect title by adverse possession. Because,
Forest Department cannot be allowed to retain or continue with
possession nor can be permitted to perfect their title by adverse
possession. Defendants are directed to pay compensation to the
plaintiff.
25. When, it is the settled propositions of law that, State/defendant is
estopped/precluded under law to claim title over any property against its
own citizens like the plaintiffs through adverse possession and when, in
the suit/appeal at hand, the State/defendant has claimed title through
adverse possession over the suit land i.e., A. 0.09 decimals in Hal Plot
No.1575 indirectly admitting the identity of the said land as well as title
and ownership of the plaintiffs on the same, then, at this juncture, the
concurrent findings of the learned trial court and learned 1st appellate
court that, the plaintiffs have failed to establish the identity of suit land,
i.e., A. 0.09 decimals out of A.1.09 decimals in Hal Suit Plot No.1575
and they(plaintiffs) have failed to establish their ownership over the said
A.0.09 decimals out of A.1.09 decimals of Hal Suit Plot No.1575 cannot
be sustainable under law.
// 20 //
26. As per discussions and observations made above, when, it is held
that, the identity of the suit land, i.e. A. 0.09 decimals in suit Hal Plot
No.1575 under Khata No.481 in Mouza-Ataupur Badapokharital is
established and title of the plaintiffs on the same is also established
through an indirect admission of the defendant/State to the same as per
law and when, it is held that, the suit of the plaintiffs in respect of
A. 0.03 decimals of suit Hal Plot No.1563 is to be failed and the suit of
the plaintiffs in respect of the A.0.09 decimals of suit Hal Plot No.1575
is to be allowed, then at this juncture, this 2nd appeal filed by the
plaintiffs(appellants) is to be allowed in part.
27. Therefore, there is justification under law for making interference
in part with the judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial court
and learned 1st appellate court through this 2nd appeal filed by the
appellants(plaintiffs).
As such, there is some merit in this 2nd appeal filed by the
plaintiffs, the same is to be allowed in part.
28. In result, this 2nd appeal filed by the appellants(plaintiffs) is
allowed in part on contest, but, without cost.
The judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial court in
dismissing the suit of the appellants(plaintiffs) vide T.S. No.27 of 1988
// 21 //
in respect of A.0.03 decimals out of A. 0.09 decimals of that suit Hal
Plot No.1563 under Hal Khata No.481 in Mouza-Attopur-Badapokharital
under Keonjhargarh Police Station in the district of Keonjhar and the
confirmation to the said part of the judgment in respect of that suit Plot
No.1563 by the learned 1st appellate court in T.A. No.12 of 1993 is
confirmed.
Whereas, the judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial
court and learned 1st appellate court in T.S. No.27 of 1988 and T.A.
No.12 of 1993 respectively in dismissing the suit of the
appellants(plaintiffs) vide T.S. No.27 of 1988 in respect of A. 0.09
decimals out of A.1.09 decimals of suit Hal Plot No.1575 in Mouza-
Attopur-Badapokharital under Keonjhargarh Police Station in the district
of Keonjhar are set aside.
29. The suit be and the same filed by the plaintiffs(appellants) vide
T.S. No.27 of 1988 in respect of A. 0.03 decimals of suit Plot No.1563 is
dismissed.
Whereas the suit be and the same filed by the plaintiffs(appellants)
vide T.S. No.27 of 1988 in respect of the suit land, i.e., A.0.09 decimals
out of A.1.09 decimals of suit Hal Plot No.1575 is decreed, but, without
cost.
// 22 //
The right title and interest of the plaintiffs(appellants) over A.
0.09 decimals out of A.1.09 decimals of suit Hal Plot No.1575 under Hal
Khata No.481 in Mouza-Attopur-Badapokharital under Keonjhargarh
Police Station in the district of Keonjhar described in Schedule-A of the
plaint is declared. It is also declared that, the defendant/State has no
right, title and interest over the said A.0.09 decimals out of A.1.09
decimals of suit Hal Plot No.1575. The possession of the
plaintiffs(appellants) over that A.0.09 decimals out of A.1.09 decimals of
suit Hal Plot No.1575 is confirmed.
The defendant/State is directed for correction of the RoR of the
aforesaid area, i.e., A.0.09 decimals of suit Hal Plot No.1575 from the
name of the State/defendant to the names of the plaintiffs(appellants).
(A.C. Behera),
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 14th of October, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A.
Designation: Personal Assistant
