Orissa High Court
Sri Radhakrishna Mohaprabhu vs State Of Orissa And Others on 25 July, 2025
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 .... Appellants
Bije, Dungripali and another
-versus-
State of Orissa and others .... Respondents
Appeared in this case:-
For Appellants : Mr. Budhiram Das, Advocate on
behalf of Mr. N.C. Pati, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty,
Learned Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA
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.
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:-
Issues
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?
2. Is there any cause of action and whether
plaintiff entitled to any relief prayed for?
3. Is the suit under-valued?
4. Is there any proper and valid notice under
Section 80 C.P.C.?
5. Is the suit barred by limitation?
6. Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties?
7. Is the defendant acquired title by adverse
possession?
Page 6 of 19
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?
(ii) Whether the defendants have
proved that, the land acquisition
proceeding was valid and all the
statutory requirements have been
complied with?
14. 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 ( A.C. Behera )
Digitally Signed
Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Judge
Designation: Personal Assistant
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Reason: Authentication th
Location: OHC, CUTTACKThe 25 of July, 2025/ Jagabandhu, P.A.
Date: 25-Jul-2025 15:47:41
Page 19 of 19