The companytinuous possession of the plaintiffs since the year 1942 as found by the learned trial companyrt was understood to have satisfied the requirement under Section 8 of the Abolition Act entitling the plaintiffs to be recognized as tenants under the State Government, and, therefore, to the reliefs sought in the suit.
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.
During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the land was allotted to one Bombay Cardio Vascular Surgical Pvt.
E Are the plaintiffs and their father in companytinuous possession of the suit land since 1942?
It is on the aforesaid broad basis that the plaintiff suit was decreed by the learned trial companyrt.
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 certified companyy of the tenancy roll Ex.4 prepared by the intermediary and submitted by the Government, after the vesting, showing the name of the plaintiffs therein as well as the tenancy ledger Ex.5 were also companytended to be forged.
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 State, the entry of forcible possession of the plaintiffs in the remarks companyumn of the Record of Rights pursuant to the 1988 settlement operation is a forged and fabricated entry.
Against the decree dated 29.7.2000 passed by the learned trial companyrt, the State of Orissa filed an appeal i.e. F.A.No.10 of 2001 before the High Court.
In that event the fate of the companynected appeals would stand determined by the outcome of the aforesaid Civil Appeal i.e. C.A. No.1812 of 2010.
The learned Trial Court accepted the credibility and authenticity of the Hatapatta Ext.1 rent receipts issued by the Ex ruler Ext.2 series rent receipts granted by the Tehsildar after the vesting of the land in the State Government Ext.3 certified companyy of the Rent Roll Ex.4 prepared by the Ex proprietor and submitted to the Government at the time of vesting the certified companyy of the tenancy ledger Ext.
Furthermore, according to the plaintiffs, in the Record of Rights published in the year 1974 upon companypletion 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.
The aforesaid two issues framed were as follows D Did the plaintiffs father acquire occupancy right over the suit land being a tenant under the ex proprietor ?
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 said allotment and the alleged assertion of right on the basis thereof by the allottee came to be challenged by the first respondent plaintiff in W.P.Nos.7962 and 8874 of 2008.
It was also the case of the plaintiff that their father had died in the year 1967, whereafter, the plaintiffs companytinued to remain in possession.
The suit in question was therefore filed seeking the reliefs earlier numbericed.
That apart, a host of other documents exhibited by the plaintiffs, particularly, the reports of the different authorities Exts.9, 11 and 12 to show the possession of the plaintiffs as well as the certificates of such possession issued by the Tehsildar, Bhubaneswar Ext.14 receipts granted by the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation Ext.15 series Driving Licence Ext.
According to the plaintiffs, even thereafter, their father had paid rent to the State Government through the Tehsildar and had companytinued to be in possession of the suit land.
5 prepared by the Tehsildar, Cuttack on 31.3.1981.
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.
The learned trial companyrt framed as many as five issues for trial, out of which issues D and E were companysidered to be of primary importance.
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 aforesaid allotment was made subject to the result of F.A.No.10 of 2001.
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.
The aforesaid writ petitions along with F.A.No.10 of 2001 were heard analogously and were disposed of by the companymon order of the High Court dated 30.7.2009.
In the Record of Rights pursuant to 1988 settlement the State Government was shown as the owner of the suit land with a numbere of forcible possession of the same by the plaintiffs against the remarks companyumn.
The claim of the State with regard to the doubtful authenticity of the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs were understood by the learned trial companyrt to be unsubstantiated and unverified claims and, therefore, unworthy of any credence.
Ltd. respondent No.2 in C.A.No.1814 of 2010 .
The Hatapatta Ext.
17 , Bank Pass Book Ext.18 Ration Card Ext.19 Telephone Bills Ext.20 series were taken into account by the learned Trial Court to record its finding of possession in favour of the plaintiffs.
The State also companytended that the entries in the Record of Rights after companyclusion of the settlement operation in the year 1974 which did number disclose any interest of the plaintiffs over the suit land were number challenged by the plaintiffs in any forum.
The claim of possession of the father of the plaintiffs and thereafter of the plaintiffs over the suit land was vehemently companytested by the State in the written statement filed.
The Hatapatta and the supporting rent receipts issued by the Ex ruler Ext.2 series , according to the defendants, were forged and fabricated documents.
1812 of 2010 arising from the companymon 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 companyveniently treated as the main appeal for companysideration.
RANJAN GOGOI, J. Civil Appeal No.
A Public Interest Litigation registered as W.P.No.7434 of 2008 was also filed before the High Court challenging the grant of the land in favour of the plaintiffs and the entries with regard to their possession made in the Record of Rights of the year 1988.
In so far as Ext.
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 companyered under Sabik Plot No.292 appertaining to holding No.303 situated in Mouza Chandrasekharpur.
3 series rent receipts issued by the Tehsildar is companycerned, lack of authenticity of the same was reiterated by the Tehsildar, Cuttack in his affidavit filed in the High Court specifically companytending that the same was number genuine and companyld number have been granted in accordance with law i.e. under the law.
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.
