S.A. No. 206 of 1998. Case: State of Orissa and Ors. Vs Abu Bakkar Habib. High Court of Orissa (India)
| Case Number | S.A. No. 206 of 1998 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Samapika Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel |
| Judges | Dr. Akshaya Kumar Rath, J. |
| Issue | Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 2(4) |
| Judgement Date | January 20, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Orissa (India) |
Judgment:
Dr. Akshaya Kumar Rath, J.
-
Defendants are the appellants against a reversing judgment.
-
The respondent as plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and permanent injunction impleading the appellants as defendants. The case of the plaintiff is that his father late Habib Abdul Latiff purchased the suit plot under a Kararnama dated 9.6.79 for a consideration of Rs. 3500/- from one Adarmani Mohanty. Adarmani delivered possession of the land to his father. Since the date of purchase his father and after death of his father, he is in possession of the land openly, peacefully, continuously. It is further stated that Adarmani occupied the suit plot as trespasser in the year 1958 and constructed 5 numbers of katcha rooms over it. After sale, he had demolished the katcha house and constructed a pucca house over the suit plot and doing his business on it. While the matter stood thus, Encroachment Case No. 805/70 was initiated. Thereafter in the year 1979-80, the Tahasildar, Dharmagarh initiated Encroachment Case No. 210/79-80 against the father of the plaintiff. His father died in November, 1979, but the case proceeded against a dead person. The Tahasildar, Dharmagarh passed order of eviction and forfeited the articles therein to the State. In spite of the said proceeding, he continued to possess the suit plot. Though the suit plot has been recorded as Anabadi in the name of the Government in the ROR but the original encroacher Adarmani possessed the same till she delivered possession of the same to the father of the plaintiff in the year 1979 under a Kararnama. Thus, he has acquired title by way of adverse possession. The land is required to be settled in his name since he has acquired title by way of adverse possession. He is ready to pay nazrana for settlement of land in his name.
-
Pursuant to issuance of summons, the defendants entered appearance and filed a comprehensive written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The specific case of the defendants is that the suit land has been recorded in the name of the Government as Anababadi padia under Nazul Khatiam 482 in the last settlement. The same is the exclusive property of the Government. Adarmani had no saleable right over the land and as such the alleged transaction is void. Adarmani was in un-authorised occupation of the suit land in or about the year 1969. When this fact came into the notice of the Tahasildar, Encroachment Case No. 805/70 was initiated against her. Necessary fine and penalty was imposed on her and the order of eviction was passed. The plaintiff was substituted in the encroachment case. The suit land has been reserved for public purpose in the master plan of Junagarh Town. Further the Encroachment Case No. 200/79 was initiated against the plaintiff. The possession of the suit land by...
To continue reading
Request your trial