The High Court
Case Details
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 5th 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 Page 1 of 25 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 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
Legal Reasoning
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 Page 2 of 25 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 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
Legal Reasoning
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 Page 3 of 25 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 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. Page 4 of 25 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 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 ? the plaintiff have been continuing in possession over the disputed site for more than 30 (vi) Whether Page 5 of 25 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 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 Page 6 of 25 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 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: the below Courts by (1) Whether 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 ? Page 7 of 25 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 (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 Page 8 of 25 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 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 Page 9 of 25 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 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. Page 10 of 25 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 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 1 (2016) 182 PLR 526 Page 11 of 25 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 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. 2 2015 (2) MPLJ Page 12 of 25 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 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