AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arindam Sinha, J
I.A. No.51 of 2022
Mr. Panigrahi, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is plaintiff. His client has acquired title against the State by
adverse possession. Inspite thereof injunction was refused by trial Court. Appellate Court concurred and that is why his client is aggrieved. He
submits, impugned appellate order dated 3rd January, 2022 is illegal and passed with material irregularity. It should be set aside. His client being in
possession is sufficient prima facie case in a suit for declaration of title, for being protected against eviction during its pendency.
Mr. Mund, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, both Courts below found on facts that State
is owner. There is direction by the appellate Court upon the trial Court to conclude the trial within six months. There should be no interference.
On query from Court regarding whether State will first participate in disposal of the suit before taking action to disposses petitioner, Mr. Mund
prays for adjournment to obtain instruction.
It is noticed from paragraph-7 of impugned order that the appellate Court found petitioner had admitted title of State by paying Rs.900/- as penalty
and report dated 22nd January, 1997 of Revenue Supervisor showed that petitioner had applied for lease. Parties are on notice that the dates of
payment and application for lease by petitioner have not been mentioned in impugned judgment but petitioner’s claim of adverse possession, hostile
against true owner recorded to be from year 1982.
Adjournment is granted.
List on 9th February, 2022 as prayed for by Mr. Mund. In the meantime, there shall be status quo.
The I.A. is disposed of.
........................................................