- (1.)DEFENDANTS 2 to 4 in a suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession have appealed against the reversing judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Puri.
(2.)THE disputed property is 62 decimals of Anabadi land in Plot No. 84 and constituted part of an estate which has long vested in the State of Orissa. Plaintiffs alleged that before plaintiff No. 1, his father had taken oral lease of the property from the ex-intermediary and in the year 1947, plaintiff No. 1 obtained written leases and planted trees on the disputed property and continued to be in possession. As the plaintiff No. 1 was a settled raiyat of the village, he acquired occupancy right in the disputed property. Subsequent to vesting of the estate, defendants 2 to 4 made an application to the Estate Abolition Collector against plaintiff No. 1 asserting communal rights of the villagers over the property and on the basis pf the said application of the defendants Miscellaneous Case No. 4 of 1958-59 was registered under Section 5 (i) of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). The Estate Abolition Collector set aside the lease and an appeal carried against the said decision was dismissed. During the pendency of the proceeding under section 5 (i) of the Act, plaintiff No. 1 had sold the property to plaintiffs 2 to 5. All the plaintiffs, therefore, filed the suit on 3-1-1968 asking for the following
reliefs:-- (i) to declare that plaintiffs have acquired occupancy right in the disputed property; (ii) the order of the Estate Abolition Collector under Section 5 (i) of the Act is illegal and ultra vires; (iii) plaintiffs' possession over the disputed property be confirmed; and (iv) it be declared that defendants 2 to 4 had, nor have, any right, title or interest or possession over the disputed property.

(3.)TWO separate written statements were filed, one by the State of Orissa (defendant No. 1) and the other by defendants 2 to 4. The first defendant pleaded that the alleged leases were invalid as they had been taken after 1-11946 and the allegation of oral lease was without basis; plaintiff No. 1 had not acquired any occupancy right as alleged; the decision of the Estate Abolition collector was not open to challenge and the suit was not maintainable. Defendants 2 to 4 in their written statement claimed that plaintiff No. 1 or his father had never taken any oral lease nor had plaintiff No. 1 taken any lease in writing in 1947. The villagers have communal right over the land and on objection of the defendants, a proceeding under Section 5 (i) of the Act had been duly initiated and on enquiry the written leases obtained during 1949 and 1950 had been duly cancelled.