The High Court
Case Details
A.F.R IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK SA No.244 of 1999 (In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) Pranakrushna Mallik (dead) & …. Appellants Others -versus- State of Orissa & Others …. Respondents Appeared in this case by Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode): For Appellants - Mr. Budhiram Das, Advocate. For Respondents - Mr. Pushparaj Bharadwaj, ASC. CORAM: MR. JUSTICE A.C.BEHERA Date of Hearing :19.02.2024:: Date of Judgment :05.04.2024 A.C. Behera, J. This 2nd Appeal has been preferred against the confirming Judgment. 2. The appellants and the respondent No.4 of this 2nd Appeal were the plaintiffs before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.181 of 1990 and they were the appellants before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.40 of 1995. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 of this 2nd Appeal were the defendants before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.181 of 1990 and they were SA No.244 of 1999 Page 1 of 20 {{ 2 }} the respondents before the 1st Appellate Court in the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.40 of 1995. The suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.181 of 1990 before the Trial Court was a suit for declaration of title, conformation of possession and permanent injunction. 3.
Legal Reasoning
The case of the plaintiffs in the suit vide T.S. No.181 of 1990 before the trial court as per their pleadings was that, the suit land is Hal Plot No.486/626 under Hal Khata No.140 Ac.0.07 decimals in Mouza Sankrupa under Pattamundai Police Station in the district of Cuttack. The said suit Hal Plot No.486/626 corresponds to Sabik Plot No.210, as per Sabik settlement of the year, 1930. The said Sabik Plot No.210 was a tank adjoining to Sabik Plot Nos.234,235,237,238,239 & 240 of the plaintiffs. The father of the plaintiffs filled up the said suit tank in the year, 1935 and used the same as their Bari raising vegetable crops thereon. After the death of the father of the plaintiffs, about 40 years back, the plaintiffs possessed the suit Sabik plot No.210 like their father as before and constructed a house on a portion of it and used that house as their outhouse keeping the rest portion thereof vacant to the knowledge of ex- landlord as well as the defendants. Thereafter, in the Hal Settlement, the suit land has been recorded in the name of the defendant No.1 (state of SA No.244 of 1999 Page 2 of 20 {{ 3 }} Orissa) under Khata No.140 plot No.486/626, but in the remarks column thereof, the unlawful possession of the plaintiffs has been noted. After publication of the Hal Settlement R.o.R of the suit land in the name of the defendant No.1 (State of Orissa), the defendant No.2 (Addl. Tahasildar, Pattamundai) started an Encroachment Case bearing Encroachment Case No.128/88 against the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, in which, they (plaintiff Nos.1 & 2) appeared. That L.E. Case No.128/88 was disposed of finally imposing Rs.170/- penalty against the plaintiffs for their illegal possession of the suit plot No.486/626. Again, the defendant No.3 (Tahasildar, Pattamundai) started an another Encroachment Case bearing Encroachment Case No.136/90 against the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land, in which, the plaintiffs filed their objection stating their continuous possession to the suit land since the time of their father i.e. since 1935 to the knowledge of everybody including the defendants and claimed their title over the suit land through adverse possession. So, without getting any way, in order to file a civil suit against the defendants for declaration of their title over the suit properties, they (plaintiffs) issued statutory notices under Section 80 of the CPC, 1908 to the defendants on 31.01.1990, those were received by the defendants on dated 02.02.1990 and 04.02.1990 respectively. But, in spite of receiving Page 3 of 20 SA No.244 of 1999 {{ 4 }} such statutory notices under Section 80 of the CPC, 1908 the defendants did not give any response/reply, for which, the plaintiffs approached the Civil Court by filing the suit vide T.S. No.181 of 1990 against the defendants praying for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit properties by way of adverse possession and for confirmation of their possession and to injunct the defendants permanently from interfering into their possession on the same. 4. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.181 of 1990, the defendant No.3 contested the same by filing its written statement taking its stands inter alia therein that: The suit of the plaintiffs is barred by law of limitation and the same is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties. The suit of the plaintiffs is also barred under Section 16 of the O.P.L.E. Act, 1972. The specific plea of the defendant No.3 was that, the suit land is a government land and the same is under the Khas possession of the Government. In which, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief as prayed for by them. The plaintiffs are the trespassers of the suit properties. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed against them (defendants). SA No.244 of 1999 Page 4 of 20 {{ 5 }} 5. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies between the parties, altogether 8 numbers of issues were framed by the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.181 of 1990 and the said issues are: ISSUES Is the suit maintainable? Is there any cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit? Is the suit hit under the provisions of Orissa Act I of 1948? It the suit barred under O.P.L.E. Act? Have the plaintiffs any right, title, interest and possession over the 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. suit land by way of adverse possession? 6. 7. court? 8. To what relief? Are the plaintiffs entitled to permanent injunction? Is the suit under-valued and beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of this 6. In order to substantiate the aforesaid reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs against the defendants, the plaintiffs examined altogether 5 numbers of witnesses from their side including the plaintiff No.2 as P.W.5 and relied upon series of documents vide Exts.1 to 8. Though the defendants cross-examined to the witnesses of the plaintiffs, but, they (defendants) did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence from their side. 7. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials, documents and evidence available in the record, the trial court answered all the issues against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants and SA No.244 of 1999 Page 5 of 20 {{ 6 }} basing upon the findings and observations made by the Trial Court in all the issues in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs, the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.181 of 1990 on contest as per its Judgment and Decree dated 20.07.1995 and 27.07.1995 respectively assigning the reasons that, the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiffs are not sufficient to establish their title over the suit properties through adverse possession and their suit vide T.S. No.181 of 1990 is hit and barred under Section 16 of the O.P.L.E. Act, 1972 as well as Orissa Communal Forests and Private Land (Prohibition and Alienation Act, 1948) and as such, the plaintiffs have no cause of action for filing the suit. For which, the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief in their favour as prayed for by them (plaintiffs) in their plaint. 8. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid Judgment and Decree of the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs passed on dated 20.07.1995 and 27.07.1995 respectively by the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.181 of 1990, they (plaintiffs) challenged the same by preferring the 1st Appeal being the appellants vide T.A. No.40 of 1995 against the defendants by arraying them (defendants) as respondents. After hearing from both the sides, the 1st Appellate Court dismissed that 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.40 of 1995 of the plaintiffs Page 6 of 20 SA No.244 of 1999 {{ 7 }} concurring/accepting the findings and observations made by the trial court as per its Judgment and Decree dated 08.02.1999 and 19.02.1999 respectively. 9. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid Judgment and Decree of the dismissal of the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.40 of 1995 of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 preferred this 2nd Appeal being the appellants against the defendants by arraying them as respondent Nos.1 to 3 as well as arraying the plaintiff No.3 as proforma respondent No.4. 10. As during the pendency of the 2nd Appeal, the appellant No.1 expired, then, his LRs have been substituted in his place as appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(e). This 2nd Appeal was admitted on formulation of the following substantial questions of law i.e. i. Whether the plaintiffs have acquired title over the suit property by virtue of adverse possession in view of the cogent evidence of PWs coupled with note of possession in the remarks column of major settlement record of right and whether the findings of the learned courts below on the said issue is perverse and sustainable? ii. Whether the plaintiffs have acquired the right of occupancy in the suit properties in view of the Sections 23,24 & 25 of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913 and in view of the admitted fact that, they were settled Raiyat of the suit land? SA No.244 of 1999 Page 7 of 20 {{ 8 }} iii. Whether the findings of the learned courts below that, the suit is hit under the provisions of Orissa Communal Forests and Private Land (Prohibition and Alienation Act, 1948) is sustainable in view of specific pleadings and evidence on record that the suit land is possessed by the plaintiffs since 1935 and there is no question of alienation of any communal land? possession iv. Whether the suit for declaration of title by adverse permanent injunction is hit by Section 16 of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972? and 11. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the appellants (plaintiffs) and the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. 12. In order to have a better appreciation and so also for the just decision of the 2nd Appeal, the above 4 formulated substantial questions of law are required to be answered one after another serially and chronologically according to the materials available in the record. So far the 1st formulated substantial question of law i.e. Whether the plaintiffs have acquired title over the suit property by virtue of adverse possession in view of the cogent evidence of PWs coupled with note of possession in the remarks column of major settlement record of right and whether the findings of the learned courts below on the said issue is perverse and sustainable is concerned: SA No.244 of 1999 Page 8 of 20 {{ 9 }} As the per pleadings of the parties, the suit land was the Government land as per Sabik Settlement and the same has also been recorded in the name of the Government in the Hal R.o.R. under Hal Khata No.140 vide Ext.3. The Hal R.o.R of the suit land has been published in the year 1987 in the name of the State (defendant No.1) under Rakhit Khata of the Government. The plaintiffs have claimed their title over the suit land against the Government and its officers through adverse possession on the basis of their continuous long possession since the time of their father i.e. since the year 1935 as well as on the basis of noting of their names as unlawful possessor in the remarks column of the Hal R.o.R. of the suit Plot No.486/626. It is the established propositions of law that, when a person claims adverse possession over the suit properties like in this suit at hand, he has no equities in his favour, as he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner. Therefore, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decision: I. 2006 (I) Apex Court Judgments 91 (SC) & 2006 (I) Civil Court Cases 198 (SC): Saroop Singh Vs. Banto & Others. SA No.244 of 1999 Page 9 of 20 {{ 10 }} possession—Pleadings—A pleading Adverse adverse possession has no equities in his favour. As he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. person It is also the settled propositions of law that, when a person claims title over the suit properties through adverse possession on the basis of his long and continuous possession since the time of his father, in that case, in order to establish his title through adverse possession, he shall specifically plead and prove, the date, from which his possession became adverse to the defendants as well as the date on which his adverse possession ripened to title. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts and the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions: (Since 120:Kalawati I. 2017 (II) CLR (SC) 1097:Dharampal (dead) Thr. LRs. Vs. Punjab Wakf Board & Others & 2009 (I) Civ.L.T (Uttarakhand) deceased) through LRs Vs. Girishh Shram (Since deceased) through LRS & Another “Claim of title by the defendant through adverse possession—There was averment the Written Statement by the defendant that, he (defendant) was in possession through his father over the suit properties since, 1953. But the date from which, his possession has become adverse not pleaded. The date of ripening of adverse possession was also not pleaded. For which, there was no question of perfecting title over the suit land through adverse possession by the defendant.” in SA No.244 of 1999 Page 10 of 20 {{ 11 }} II. 2023 (4) Civil Court Cases 634 (Himachal Pradesh): Om Prakash & Another Vs. Bishan Dass (Para Nos.14 & 15) Claim of title through adverse possession by the defendants—When, material on record does not suggest that, the defendants ever expressed their specific hostile animus to hold possession of the suit land as owners by denying the title of the plaintiff or his predecessor-in- interest—Defendant thus not perfected their title over the suit land by way of adverse possession. In case of failure to prove adverse possession, any other form of possession howsoever, long, cannot be held sufficient to non-suit plaintiff in his prayer for possession of the suit land on the basis of title. III. 2024 (I) Civ.C.C. 251 (SC): Government of Kerla & Another Vs. Joseph & Others. Adverse Possession against Government Land—When land is subject of proceedings wherein adverse possession has claimed, belongs to Government, Court is duty-bound to act with greater seriousness, effectiveness, care and circumspection, as it may lead to destruction of a right/title of the State to immovable property. A plea of adverse possession must be pleaded with proper particulars, such as, when the possession became adverse—Court is not to travel beyond pleading to give any relief. Adverse possession—Mere possession over a property for a long period of time does not grant right of adverse possession on its own. Here in this suit at hand, the suit land has been recorded in the name of the Government in the Hal R.o.R under Rakhit Khata. The plaintiff No.2 (Dinabandhu Mallik, who has been examined as P.W.5 before the trial court) has deposed in Para No.5 of his deposition by answering the questions of the learned Government Counsel that, “he cannot say, the date, month and year of their possession to the suit land”. Page 11 of 20 SA No.244 of 1999 {{ 12 }} Absolutely, there is no pleadings and evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs to show that, when, they (plaintiffs) had expressed their hostile animus before the defendants to possess the suit land as owners thereof denying the title of the defendant No.1 (State) on the same. There is also no pleadings and evidence from the side of the plaintiffs to show the date, from which, their possession over the suit land became adverse against the defendants and on which date their adverse possession over the suit land had ripened to their title. When the suit properties belong to the Government and when the plaintiffs have claimed their title over the Government land i.e. over the suit land through adverse possession, then, at this juncture, in view of the principles of law enunciated by the Apex Court in the ratio of the above decision reported in 2024 (1) Civil Court Cases 251 (SC), the court is duty bound to act with greater seriousness, effectiveness and circumspection to deal with this case for deciding the title over the suit land through adverse possession, because it may lead to destruction of right and title of the State in the suit land. For which, it is the duty of the plaintiffs to clearly plead and establish all the facts clarified in the ratio of the above decisions to establish their title over the suit land through adverse possession. SA No.244 of 1999 Page 12 of 20 {{ 13 }} When the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiffs are not fulfilling all the essentials of adverse possession for establishing their title over the suit land through adverse possession as clarified in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, then, at this juncture, the claim of title of the plaintiffs over the suit land through adverse possession is not entertainable under law. 13. So far as the claim of the plaintiffs over the suit land on the basis of noting of their names as unlawful possessors in the remarks Column of the suit Hal Plot is concerned: On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts in the ratio of the following decision: in favour of I. 1999 (3) O.R.M. 2.40 (Ori)—Radha Kanta Sahu Vrs. Bijay Pratap Singhdeo & Others—Claim of title through adverse possession on the basis of note of possession—Note of possession in the R.o.R— There is nothing to prove possession. R.o.R of the last settlement noting, the remarks about forcible the plaintiff without possession mentioning the date, proves her possession without title. There has been no element of adverse possession for acquiring a title to the property, as long possession cannot enure to the benefit of the plaintiff for acquiring title by adverse possession. II. 2018 (I) CLR-Page 1221—Lakhapati Dharua Vrs. Dullav Sahu and others—Indian Limitation Act, 1963- Article 64 & 65—Adverse Possession— Mentioning the name in remark column of M.S. R.O.R. is not sufficient- mere possession of the suit land for long time is not sufficient to hold that, the defendant has perfected title by way of adverse SA No.244 of 1999 Page 13 of 20 {{ 14 }} possession, unless the classical requirements of adverse possession i.e. nec vi, nec clam, nec precario are pleaded and proved. There is no indication/mention in the Hal R.o.R of the suit land vide Ext.3 about the date of possession of the plaintiffs over that suit plot No.486/626, for which, in view of the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Courts, the claim of title of the plaintiffs through adverse possession on the basis of noting of their names in the remarks column of the R.o.R as illegal possessors cannot be acceptable under law. Therefore, the pleadings and evidence of the plaintiffs are not sufficient to establish their title over the suit properties through adverse possession on the basis of the noting of their names in the remarks column of the Hal R.o.R of the suit land as illegal possessors. For which, the plea of title of the plaintiffs over the suit land through adverse possession has been failed to be established by them (plaintiffs) as per law. 14. So far as the 2nd formulated substantial question of law i.e. Whether the plaintiffs have acquired the right of occupancy in the suit properties in view of the Sections 23,24 & 25 of the Orissa Tenancy Act, 1913 in view of the admitted fact that, they were settled Raiyat of the suit land is concerned: SA No.244 of 1999 Page 14 of 20 {{ 15 }} here in this suit at hand, when the plaintiffs have claimed their title over the suit land through adverse possession and at the same time, they (plaintiffs) have claimed their occupancy right over the same, then, at this juncture, I thought it proper to refer the ratio of the following decision of the Hon’ble Courts on this aspect: I. and right adverse 2021 (1) OJR 903 & 2021 (1) CLR 994 Dasarath Sharma & Others Vs. State of Odisha—Claim of occupancy possession simultaneously—The claim of title as an occupancy raiyat and that of adverse possession are not one and the same and in fact they are mutually opposite. Claim of title by adverse possession cannot be raised as an alternative plea of occupancy raiyat. Appeal dismissed. Pleadings—Mere pleadings of open, continuous and long possession or enjoyment of the land without a specific assertion as to when the plaintiffs entered into possession and when the same became adverse to the true owner will not by itself be sufficient to claim title by adverse possession. The edifice of claim of title by adverse possession cannot stand on the foundation of denying the title of the true owner. When during trial of the suit vide T.S. No.181 of 1990, the plaintiffs have not claimed their occupancy right over the suit land and when during appeal, they have claimed their occupancy right as well as their title through adverse possession simultaneously over the suit land and when as per the propositions of law settled by the Hon’ble Courts in the ratio of the aforesaid decision, the claim of occupancy right as well as claim of title over the suit properties through adverse possession Page 15 of 20 SA No.244 of 1999 {{ 16 }} simultaneously are mutually opposite, then, at this juncture, the claim of occupancy right of the plaintiffs over the suit properties for the first time at the appellate stage is not acceptable under law being an afterthought plea and the same is also is not legally sustainable under law for the reasons assigned above. 15. So far as the 3rd formulated substantial question of law i.e. Whether the findings of the learned courts below that, the suit is hit under the provisions of The Orissa Communal Forest and Private Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1948 is sustainable in view of the specific pleadings and evidence on record that the suit land is possessed by the plaintiffs since 1935 and there is no question of alienation of any communal land is concerned; The Orissa Communal Forest and Private Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1948 relate to the alienation of the Government land. As this suit/appeal does not concern with alienation of the suit land, which is the government land, then, the provisions of The Orissa Communal Forest and Private Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1948 have become inapplicable. Therefore, it cannot be held that the, suit of the plaintiffs was hit under the provisions of The Orissa Communal Forest and Private Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1948. Therefore, the findings of the learned courts below that, the suit of Page 16 of 20 SA No.244 of 1999 {{ 17 }} the plaintiffs was hit under the provisions of The Orissa Communal Forest and Private Lands (Prohibition of Alienation) Act, 1948 cannot be sustainable under law. For which, that findings of the trial court against the plaintiffs in issue No.3 and the confirmation to the same by the 1st Appellate Court are set aside. 16. So far as the last and 4th formulated substantial question of law i.e. Whether the suit for declaration of title by adverse possession and permanent injunction is hit under Section 16 of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 is concerned; On this aspect the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts in the ratio of the following decisions: I. 2019 (I) CLR 925: Nimai Charan Purohit Vs. State of Orissa & Others. (Para No.9). O.P.L.E Act,1972—Section 16 read with CPC, 1908— Sections 9 & 11—The decision of revenue officer in the proceeding under OPLE Act can neither operate as res judicata nor Section 16 of the O.P.L.E Act, 1972 can stand as a bar relating to the question of title in the subsequent civil suit filed by the plaintiffs. II. 2007 (I) OLR 52: State of Orissa, Through Collector, Sundargarh and Another Vs. Daitari Sahu & Others. (Para No.8) O.P.L.E Act, 1972—Section 16 read with CPC, 1908—Section 9—The Civil Court has jurisdiction to see right, title and interest over the suit properties if the issue involves bona fide dispute. SA No.244 of 1999 Page 17 of 20 {{ 18 }} III. 2018 (II) CLR 860:State of Orissa & Others Vs. Badukala Dilesu. (Para No.9) O.P.L.E Act, 1972—Section 16 read with CPC, 1908—Sections 9 & 11—The decision of the Revenue Officer in the proceeding under O.P.L.E Act can neither operate as res judicata nor Section 16 of the O.P.L.E Act can stand as a bar relating to the question of title in the subsequent suit. IV. 2018 (II) CLR 207:State of Orissa & Another Vs. Dukhishyama Behera & Others. (Para No.9) O.P.L.E Act, 1972—Section 16 read with CPC, 1908—Sections 9 & 11—Notwithstanding the bar contained in Section 16 of the OPLE Act, 1972, the civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the complicated question of law. V. 2018 (II) CLR 242: Chandra Sekhar Sahu Vs. State of Orissa & Others & 1996 (I) OLR 400: State of Orissa Vs. Bhanu Mali (dead), Nurpa Bewa & Others. O.P.L.E Act, 1972—Section 16 read with CPC, 1908—Sections 9 & 11—The decision of Revenue Officer in the proceeding under OPLE Act can neither operate as res-judicata nor Section 16 thereof can stand as a bar relating to the question of title in the subsequent civil suit. Here in this present suit at hand, the plaintiffs have claimed their title over the suit properties through adverse possession, for which, in view of the propositions of law settled/clarified in the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, the final orders/decisions passed by the Revenue Officer in the Encroachment Cases vide Encroachment Proceedings No.128 of 1988 and 136 of 1990 in respect of the suit properties under O.P.L.E Act, 1972 neither can operate as res-judicata nor Section 16 of Page 18 of 20 SA No.244 of 1999 {{ 19 }} the OPLE Act, stands as a bar for adjudication of the question of title in the suit properties in the suit filed by the plaintiffs subsequent to the decisions in the O.P.L.E. Case Vide O.P.L.E. Case Nos.128 of 1988 and 136 of 1990. Therefore, the suit for declaration of title vide T.S. No.181 of 1990 filed by the plaintiffs claiming their title over the suit properties through adverse possession as well as their claim for permanent injunction against the defendants is not hit and bar under Section 16 of the OPLE Act 1972. 17. So, the findings and observations made by the trial court in the issue No.4 of the Judgment of the suit vide T.S. No.181 of 1990 and the confirmation of the same by the 1st Appellate Court in T.A. No.40 of 1995 that, the suit of the plaintiffs is hit and bar under Section 16 of the OPLE Act are not sustainable under law. For which, the said findings of the trial court and the 1st Appellate Court for making the suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.181 of 1990 bar under Section 16 of the OPLE Act, 1972 are held to be redundant. 18. As per the discussions and observations made above, when the final findings made by the trial court in its Judgment and decree passed in T.S. No.181 of 1990 in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs against the defendants refusing their all prayers and the confirmation of the same by the 1st Appellate Court are not held erroneous, then, at this juncture, the Page 19 of 20 SA No.244 of 1999 {{ 20 }} question of interfering with the Judgment and Decree of the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs by the trial court and 1st Appellate Court through this 2nd Appeal filed by the appellants does not arise. 19. Therefore, the 2nd Appeal of the appellants (plaintiffs) must fail. 20. In the result, the 2nd Appeal filed by the appellants (plaintiffs) is dismissed on contest against respondent Nos.1 to 3, but without cost. The Judgment and Decree of dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.181 of 1990 and confirmation of the same by the 1st Appellate Court in T.A. No.40 of 1995 are confirmed/upheld. Orissa High Court, Cuttack. Rati Ranjan Nayak// Senior Stenographer Date:05.04.2024 (A.C. Behera), Judge. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RATI RANJAN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack, India Date: 05-Apr-2024 16:09:24 SA No.244 of 1999 Page 20 of 20