29th July, 2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The plaintiff is the appellant
against a reversing judgment. The suit filed by the
plaintiff for declaration of his right, title, interest and
confirmation of possession in respect of the schedule
land was decreed by the trial Court but reversed and
dismissed by the first appellate Court.
2. The plaintiff’s case, briefly stated, is that one
Ramprasad Guru being the Lambardar Gountia of
village Pandloi in the district of Sambalpur executed
a registered permanent lease deed bearing No. 372
dated 22.11.1924 in favour of Haragovind Purohit, a
minor represented by his father guardian
Achyutanand Purohit and delivered possession of the
land. Said land pertains to Dewan Settlement Plot
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8,340, 342 and 353 which correspond to
Hamid Settlement Plot Nos. 1, 514 and 527, the total
extent of land being Ac. 47.14 decimals. The minor
lessee paid land revenue to the Lambardar Gountia.
Some of the co-sharers of Lambardar Gountia
challenged the lease deed before the Deputy
Commissioner, Sambalpur in Revenue Case No- 5/9-
12 of 1925-26 but the same was dismissed on
13.07.1925. Achyutanand Purohit on behalf of his
minor son filed Revenue Case No.11/2-114 of 1926-
27 before the Tahasildar, Sambalpur for demarcation
of the lease hold land which was allowed by order
dated 21.06.1927. Haragovind Purohit possessed the
land after attaining majority. His father died on
31.08.1982 while he himself died on 11.09.2001.
During his lifetime, Haragovind Purohit executed a
Will on 10.09.1986 in respect of the entire lease-hold
property in favour of the plaintiff, who is his nephew.
The Will, which was unregistered was in the custody
of its scribe namely, Fakir Sahoo who handed over
the same to the plaintiff in the year 2004. As such,
the plaintiff succeeded to the property on his own
right, title and interest. The plaintiff further claims
that the suit schedule A land measuring Ac. 11.25
decimals corresponding to Hamid Settlement Plot No.
1 of M.S. Khata No. 119 corresponds to the lease-
hold land granted by the Lambardar Gountia but
was wrongly recorded in the name of the State
Government in Rakhit Khata as Gochar Kisam
behind his back. He therefore, filed OSS Case No.
186/2004 before the Member, Board of Revenue for
correction of ROR but said case was dismissed on
17.02.2007. It is further averred that the State
Government was never in possession of the suit land.
But taking advantage of the wrong recording in the
ROR, the defendants started De-reservation
Proceeding no.15 of 2004 to lease out the land to
IDCO for establishment of factories by dispossessing
the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.