The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK S.A. No.172 of 1992 (In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) Sri Radhakrishna Mohaprabhu Bije, Dungripali and another …. Appellants State of Orissa and others …. Respondents -versus- Appeared in this case:- For Appellants For Respondents CORAM: JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA : : Mr. Budhiram Das, Advocate on behalf of Mr. N.C. Pati, Advocate Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty, Learned Standing Counsel JUDGMENT Date of hearing : 04.07.2025 / date of judgment : 25.07.2025 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.130 of 1973 and appellants before the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.19/28 of 1981-87. The respondents in this 2nd appeal were the defendants before the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.130 of 1973 and respondents before the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide T.A. No.19/28 of 1981-87. 3. The suit of the plaintiffs (appellants in this 2nd appeal) vide T.S. No.130 of 1973 was a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession, in alternative recovery of possession. 4. The case of the plaintiffs(appellants in this 2nd appeal) against the defendants(respondents in this 2nd appeal) in a nutshell as per the averments made in their plaint is that, the plaintiff no.1 is the deity and the plaintiff no.2 is its trustee on being duly appointed by the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowment, Orissa.
Legal Reasoning
The plaintiff no.1(deity) is the owner and in possession over the suit land. The defendants have no manner of right, title, interest and possession over the suit land, The defendant no.2(S.D.O. Canal Division, Barpali) filed a Mutation Case vide Mutation Case No.501 of 1969 before the Tahsildar, Sonepur for correction of RoR of the Page 2 of 19 suit land from the name of the plaintiff no.1-deity to the name of the State(defendant no.1). To which, the plaintiffs objected, but, their objection was rejected and the Mutation Case No.501 of 1969 was allowed in favour of the State(defendant no.1). Then, the plaintiffs challenged the same by filing Mutation Appeal No.19 of 1971 before the S.D.O., Sonepur, but, that Mutation Appeal No.19 of 1971 of the plaintiffs was rejected. As, the defendant no.2(S.D.O. Canal Division) disclosed in the Mutation Case No.501 of 1969 that, the suit land has already been acquired by the State(defendant no.1), for which, the plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendant praying for declaration of their title over the suit land and to confirm their possession thereon, in alternative recovery of possession, if they(plaintiffs) are found to be dispossessed from the suit land in the meantime stating in the plaint that, the plaintiff no.1 is the owner of the suit and they (plaintiffs) had/have been possessing the same. No statutory provisions of law have been complied with for acquisition of the suit land. For which, the ownership and possession of the plaintiff no.1(deity) over the suit land is continuing and Page 3 of 19 they(plaintiffs) are regularly paying the rent of the suit land to the State and the State had/has been accepting the rents of the suit land regularly from them(plaintiffs). The RoR of the suit land stands in the name of the plaintiffs. The order of the Tahsildar passed in Mutation Case No.501 of 1969 for correction of RoR of the suit land in favour of the State has created a cloud over the title of the plaintiffs on the suit land. For which, they (plaintiffs) filed the suit against the defendants praying for the above relief(s). 5. Having been noticed from the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.130 of 1973, the defendants contested the same by filing their joint written statement denying all the averments made by the plaintiffs in their plaint taking their stands specifically that, the suit land has already been acquired by the State of Orissa(defendant no.1) for public purposes following the provisions of the Orissa Act XVIII of 1948 in the year 1958 on payment of proper compensation amount to the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowment on behalf of its owner, i.e., plaintiff no.1(deity), as the plaintiff no.1(owner of the suit land) had/has been managing by the Hindu Religious Endowment Board of Page 4 of 19 Orissa. After lawful acquisition of the suit land in the year 1958, the suit land vested in the State free from all the encumbrances and as such, since acquisition of the suit land by the State, the State is the owner and in possession over the suit land. For which, the RoR of the suit land has been corrected properly to the name of the State of Orissa(defendant no.1) and after acquisition of the suit land by the State, the same has been handed over to the Canal Division of the State. The quarters of the staffs of the Canal Division, Sonepur have been constructed on the same spending lakhs of rupees and the staffs of Canal Division are staying in the quarters on the suit land as per allotments. For which, the plaintiffs have no right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. Because, the suit land was acquired way-back in the year 1958 on payment of proper compensation amount to the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowment Board on behalf of the plaintiff no.1-deity. For which, the plaintiffs should have arrayed the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowment Board as party in the suit as a necessary party. So, in absence of the Commissioner of Hindu Page 5 of 19 Religious Endowment Board, Orissa, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable under law. As such, the plaintiff no.1-deity has lost its right, title, interest and possession over the suit land since the date of proper acquisition of the same in the year 1958. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no locus standi to challenge the acquisition of the suit land indirectly by filing the suit. For which, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with cost. 6. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies between the parties, altogether seven numbers of issues were framed by the trial court in the suit vide T.S. No.130 of 1973 and the said issues are:- I s s u e s 1. Whether the suit properties have been acquired by defendant no.1(State of Orissa) complying the provisions of law and whether compensation has been paid to the proper person for such acquisition? Is there any cause of action and whether plaintiff entitled to any relief prayed for? Is the suit under-valued? Is there any proper and valid notice under Section 80 C.P.C.? Is the suit barred by limitation? Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? Is the defendant acquired title by adverse possession? Page 6 of 19 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 7. In order to substantiate the aforesaid relief(s), sought for by the plaintiffs in the suit vide T.S. No.130 of 1973 against the defendants, they (plaintiffs) examined two witnesses from their side including plaintiff no.2 as P.W.1 and exhibited several documents on their behalf vide Exts.1 to 9. On the contrary, in order to nullify/defeat the suit of the plaintiffs, the defendants examined four witnesses from their side as D.Ws.1 to 4 and relied upon several documents on their behalf vide Exts.A to T/1. 8. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials, documents and evidence available in the record, the trial court answered issue nos.1, 2, 3 and 7 against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants, but, the issue nos.4, 5 and 6 were not pressed by the parties. 9. On the basis of the findings and observations made by the trial court in issue nos.1, 2, 3 and 7 against the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants, the trial court dismissed the suit vide T.S. No.130 of 1973 of the plaintiffs on contest against the defendants as per its judgment and Page 7 of 19 decree dated 07.09.1981 and 15.09.1981 respectively assigning the reasons that, “the oral and documentary evidence of the parties including Exts.A to T/1 filed and proved on behalf of the defendants are establishing that, the suit land has already been acquired properly by the State(defendant no.1) following due procedures of law concerning the acquisition and adequate compensation amount for such acquisition has already been paid to the Commissioner of Hindu Religious Endowment, Orissa on behalf of the owner(plaintiff no.1-deity) and possession of the suit properties was taken by the State of Orissa and due to acquisition of the suit land, the suit land vested in the State free from all encumbrances and as such plaintiffs have no right, title, interest and possession over the suit properties. For which, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief as prayed for. 10. On being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs passed in T.S. No.130 of 1973 by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Sonepur, the plaintiffs challenged the same by preferring the 1st appeal vide 1st appeal No.19/28 of 1981-87 being Page 8 of 19 the appellants against the defendants arraying the defendants as respondents. 11. After hearing, from both the sides, the 1st Appellate Court, i.e., learned Additional District Judge, Bolangir dismissed to that 1st appeal bearing No.19/28 of 1981-87 of the plaintiffs as per its judgment and decree dated 12.03.1992 and 28.03.1992 respectively confirming/ concurring the findings and observations made by the trial court against the plaintiffs(appellants). 12. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the dismissal of the 1st Appeal vide T.A. No.19/28 of 1981-87 of the plaintiffs passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bolangir, they(plaintiffs) challenged the same by preferring this 2nd appeal being the appellants against the defendants arraying the defendants as respondents. 13. This 2nd Appeal was admitted on formulation of the following substantial questions of law and the said substantial questions of law are :- Page 9 of 19 (i) When, the suit land has been recorded in the name of the plaintiffs in the Consolidation Record of Right, whether the decisions of the courts below would be sustainable? the defendants have (ii) Whether land acquisition proved the that, the proceeding was valid and all been statutory complied with? requirements have 14.
Legal Reasoning
I have already heard from the learned counsel for the appellants(plaintiffs) and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents(defendants). 15. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the findings and observations made by the trial court and the 1st appellate court in their respective judgments and decrees, the rival submissions of the learned counsels of both the sides, the above two formulated substantial questions of law are taken up together analogously for their discussions hereunder, as both the substantial questions of law are inter-linked having ample nexus with each other. 16. It is the concurrent findings on facts of both the courts, i.e., learned trial court as well as learned 1st appellate court in their respective judgments and decrees that, Page 10 of 19 “the records of the Land Acquisition Proceedings vide No.217 of 1953 along with the various notifications and orders concerning the said land acquisition proceeding and other proceedings in connection with the same vide Exts.A to T/1 including the documents relating to payment of compensation are establishing that, the suit land has already been acquired properly in the year 1958 on payment of due compensation amount for the same to the Hindu Religious Endowment Department through its Commissioner on behalf of its owner, i.e., plaintiff no.1(deity) and possession thereof was taken by the defendant no.1(State) and thereafter, the suit land was handed over by the State(defendant no.1) to the Irrigation Department for construction of staff quarters for that department and accordingly, the staff quarters of irrigation department were constructed on the suit land, to which, the staffs of irrigation department are occupying as per allotments and the own witness of the plaintiffs have corroborated to the same in their respective evidence stating about the construction of the staff quarters of the irrigation department on the suit land.” Page 11 of 19 17. This 2nd appeal is under Section 100 of the C.P.C., for which, it is not desirable under law for making interference by this 2nd appellate court with the concurrent findings on facts arrived by the learned trial court and learned 1st appellate court against the plaintiffs refusing their prayers in respect of the suit land after appreciating the pleadings and evidence of the parties and to take any view on facts contrary to the views expressed by the learned trial court and 1st appellate court. Therefore, accepting the concurrent findings on facts arrived by the learned trial court and learned 1st appellate court, it is held that, the suit land was properly required by the State(defendant no.1) in the year 1958 on payment of compensation amount thereof to the Commissioner of Hindu Religious and Endowment, Orissa on behalf of its owner, i.e., plaintiff no.1(deity). 18. The law concerning the title and possession of the properties like the suit land, after acquisition of the same by the State and the legal effect of the RoR of the acquired land in the name of its previous owner, (to whom Page 12 of 19 compensation was paid for acquisition) has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions :- (i) In a case between Ram Singh and others vrs. Jammu Development Authority and others : reported in II(2017) Civil Law Times(S.C.)-132 that, land in question was subject matter of acquisition proceedings and eventually resulted in passing award for payment of compensation— Compensation was deposited by State—Even if, the writ petitioners asserted their so-called possession over the land in question subsequent to completion of acquisition proceedings, their possession on land were not legal possession in the eyes of law, but, it was illegal and unauthorized possession over acquired land. (ii) In a case between Y. P. Sudhanva Reddy and others vrs. Chairman and Managing Director, Karnataka Milk Federation and others : reported in (2018) 6 SCC-574, 2018(2) CCC(S.C.)- 420 and 2018(3) Civil Law Times(S.C.)-220—That claim of ownership of property subsequent to its acquisition proceeding attain its finality— Declaratory remedy under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act as well as injunction under Section 35 of the said Specific Relief Act cannot be granted. The suit of such nature cannot be filed. (iii) In a case between Delhi Dayalbagh Co- operative House Building Society Ltd. vrs. Page 13 of 19 Registrar, Co-operative Societies and others : reported in 2019(1) CCC-375(S.C.)—After acquisition of the property by the State and taking its possession, the same was handed over by the State Government to the society, for which, all rights of said land vested with the society free from encumbrances. The previous land owner has no title and possession over the said land. (iv) In a case between V. Chandrasekaran and another vrs. The Administrative Officer and others : reported in 2013(I) OLR (S.C.)-324—Once the land is vested in the State free from all encumbrances, it cannot be divested and proceedings under the Act would not lapse, even if, an award is not made within the statutory stipulated period. (v) In a case between Sri G.V. Reddy vrs. Ministry of Communication Employees Co- operative Housing Society Ltd. : reported in 2020(1) CCC-463(Karnataka)—Civil court has no jurisdiction to examine acquisition of proceeding by necessary implication, when the subject matter, i.e., property was acquired by Land Acquisition Act, which is special and comprehensive Act, remedy available to plaintiff even for relief of injunction is not under Section 9 of the C.P.C. So, the plaint of the plaintiff is liable to be rejected under Order-7, Rule-11 of the C.P.C. Page 14 of 19 (vi) In a case between May George vrs. Special Tahasildar and others : reported in (2010) 13 SCC-98—Once the land is vested in the State, it cannot be divested even there has been some irregularity in the acquisition proceedings. (vii) In a case C. Padma and others vrs. Dy. Secretary to Government of T.N. and others : reported in (1997) 2 SCC-627—After vesting of the land in the State pursuant to the acquisition of the land, the land owners have no rights to challenge the notification. (viii) In a case between Shiv Prakash vrs. Mool Chand and others : reported in 2024(4) Civil Law Judgments-296-(Delhi)—No dispute that, the acquisition process of suit land complete and mother of the plaintiff withdrew the compensation amount deposited by the State—After the process of acquisition is complete, the acquired land vests in the State free from all encumbrances with possession and any person retaining the land or any re-entry made by any person is nothing else but trespass on the State land—Since the plaintiff was left with no right, title or interest in the suit land and the land stood vested in the Government, therefore, the plaintiff had no locus standi to file the present suit. (ix) In a case between Indore Development Authority vrs. Monaharlal and others : reported in (2020) 8 SCC-129—After the process of Page 15 of 19 acquisition is complete, the acquired land vesed in the State free from all encumbrances with possession and any person retaining the land or any re-entry made by any person is nothing else but trespass on the State land. After acquisition, the legal heir of the previous owner left with no right, title and interest in the acquired land. (x) In a case between State of U.P. vrs. Dy. Director of Consolidation and others : reported in (1996) 5 SCC-194 that, when the RoR prepared by the consolidation authorities will have no value and the same is to be ignored— The land was notified as a reserved forest under Section 20 of the Forest Act, but, the respondents in appeal before the Supreme Court claimed that, they are in possession of the land and have acquired Sirdari rights but, the Supreme Court held that, the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to go behind the notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act. The notification is binding on the consolidation authorities. So, the recording of the same by the consolidation authorities in the name of the respondents after notification under Section 20 of the Forest Act instead of the State is to be ignored. (xi) In a case between Prabhagiya Van Adhikari Awadh Van Prabhag vrs. Arun Kumar Bhardwaj(Dead) Thr. Lrs. & others : reported in Page 16 of 19 2021(II) OLR(S.C.)-904(Paras-27 and 28) that, legal effect of RoR in the name of previous owner subsequent to acquisition—Land declared as protected forest/reserved forest. So, by virtue of notification under Section 4, land vested in the forest department—After such notification, name of the lessees find mention in the revenue records— Even if the names of lessees finds mention in the revenue without any supporting document or writing from the competent authority of creation of lease contemplated under the Forest Act is inconsequential and does not create any right, title and interest over the land claimed to be in possession by the lessee under the local management. Therefore, the lessee would not be entitled to any right on the basis of an entry in the revenue record. 19. As per the discussions and observations made above, when the suit land has already been acquired by the State (defendant no.1) since the year 1958, i.e., much prior to the preparation of the RoR of the suit land by the Consolidation Authorities in the name of the defendant no.1 and when after acquisition of the suit land, the suit land vested in the State free from all encumbrances extinguishing the right, title, interest and possession of the defendant no.1 from the Page 17 of 19 same and when the State Government has already handed over the suit land to the irrigation department and the irrigation department has already constructed staff quarters on the same for its staffs and when the staffs of irrigation department are occupying in the said quarters on the suit land as per allotments, then at this juncture, preparation of the consolidation RoR of the suit land in the name of the plaintiff no.1 after acquisition of the suit land by the Government has no value at all. Therefore, as per law, consolidation RoR of the suit land in the name of plaintiff no.1 is ignored in view of the ratio of the above decisions of the Apex Court reported in (1996) 5 SCC-194 and 2021(II) OLR(S.C.)-904 referred to (supra) and the correction of the RoR of the suit land from the name of the plaintiff no.1 to the name of the State cannot be held as erroneous or illegal. 20. Therefore, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the decisions referred to (supra) indicated in Para No.18 of this judgment to this 2nd appeal at hand, it cannot be held that, the decisions of the trial court and the 1st appellate court in dismissing the suit of Page 18 of 19 the plaintiffs vide T.S. No.130 of 1973 and T.A. No.19/28 of 1981-87 denying the relief(s) sought for by the plaintiffs (appellants) are illegal. For which, in other words, it is held that, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the trial court and 1st appellate court in T.S. No.130 of 1973 and T.A. No.19/28 of 1981-87 are legal. So, the question of interfering with the said judgments and decrees of the trial court and 1st appellate court through this 2nd appeal filed by the appellants do not arise. 21. As such, there is no merit in this 2nd appeal filed by the appellants(plaintiffs). The same must fail. 22. In result, the 2nd appeal filed by the appellants (plaintiffs) is dismissed on contest against the respondents(defendants), but without cost. 23. The judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial court and the learned 1st appellate court in T.S. No.130 of 1973 and T.A. No.19/28 of 1981-87 respectively are confirmed. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 25-Jul-2025 15:47:41 Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 25th of July, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A. ( A.C. Behera ) Judge Page 19 of 19