SANJIB BANERJEE,J. - (1.) Given the litigative resourcefulness of the appellant, it may be futile to hope that the frivolous claim carried by the appellant will rest with this order.
(2.) The yarn that is spun out by the appellant is that in the year 1970 an agricultural land was allotted to the appellant's grandfather, but it was discovered that the plot allotted in Havelock Island had already been made over to the forest department. The story, thereafter, is that the revenue authorities permitted the appellant's grandfather to occupy an alternative land in Krishna Nagar village in lieu of the allotment made at Kalapathar by the order of August 27, 1970. It is the appellant's case that the appellant has no writing in support of the appellant's contention that the revenue authorities required the appellant's predecessor to occupy an alternative agricultural land.
(3.) For the present purpose, it may even be presumed that the appellant's predecessor encroached on revenue land in or about the 1970s. However, as the picture presented by the appellant unfolds, it will be evident that such presumption may not hold good.;