JUDGMENT : K. Ramamurthy, Member. - This is a suo-motu revision under section 12(3) of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972 against order dated 30-6-1980 passed by A.D.M., Balangir in Revenue Revision (Enc.) 5/78. In Balangir district on Bangomunda Minor Irrigation Project opposite parties' s father had encroached two plots measuring Ac. 0.58 and Ac.7.50. This was recorded as Jalachar. Encroachment case No. 7/74 was started. Opposite parties' s father claimed that this was part of Gaunti raiyati land and claimed title by adverse possession. He also produced the certified copy of Ex-Ruler's decision in Revenue Appeal No. 11 of 1940 wherein the Ex-Ruler said that eviction should not be made. There was also a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. in Criminal Case No. 74/71. 2. Tahasildar rejected the plea of adverse possession on 29-11-1976. O.Ps.' father filed an appeal case No. 15/7 of 1976 before the S.D.O which was dismissed on merit. He filed revision case No. 5/78 before the A.D.M., Balangir. This was allowed on 30-6-1980. 3. Standing Counsel points out that in 1976 in settlement this was recorded in favour of the Government. O. Ps' father did not file appeal or revision against this settlement order. One Sanyasi Barik is recorded to be in forcible possession of part of the land in-Sabik Plot 1209 (Hal 1365) in the settlement. 4. Standing Counsel argues that as per settlement record presumption is in favour of Government. The Executive Engineer, who is in-charge of Minor Irrigation Project, has given a report that this is a pending project of Class III. This project is shown as completely derelict project. It has not been renovated for long because only anicut will be commanded by Indra Project. 5. The construction of this project was started in 1950. Standing Counsel, argues that in 1974 an encroachment case started. O.P. could not have been in possession for more than 30 years. 6. Standing Counsel further questions whether land involved in 1940 Order of the Ruler is the disputed land. 7. Lastly, he argues that it is a suo-motu case. There is no question of substitution if the party is dead. 8. Sri H.B. Swain, Advocate appearing for the O. Ps argues that the idea for Minor Irrigation Project was not mentioned in the lower court. It is now raised for the first time in this Court. In 1974. 7. Lastly, he argues that it is a suo-motu case. There is no question of substitution if the party is dead. 8. Sri H.B. Swain, Advocate appearing for the O. Ps argues that the idea for Minor Irrigation Project was not mentioned in the lower court. It is now raised for the first time in this Court. In 1974. Revenue Inspector reported that O. Ps' father was cultivating this land. In 1936 Settlement of Patna State it is shown that this plot was part of Mukund Sagar. Bangomunda Zamindar allowed him to cultivate this land, but not as Gauntia. Gauntia could lease it out. Sri Swain concedes that occupancy right does not accrue to the O.Ps. He further submits that this plot is not likely to be submerged. 9. He further points out that Sanyasi Barik reported to be in possession of some other land by Settlement, other than the disputed land. He says that A.D.M's orders fully explained the case. 10. On 5-12-1981 this revision was filed. O.Ps' father died one year earlier. No substitution petition is filed, nor any affidavit filed in time for condoning delay. 11. The Ex-Ruler's order in 1940 is very clear. It recognised the right of the O Ps' predecessor-in-interest to cultivate this land so long as it is proved that this land is not submerged by the Project. It is clear that this is not getting submerged as Indra Project will irrigate the canal of this Minor Irrigation Project and this M.I.P., need not store water. There is nothing on record to show that this is different from the disputed land. 12. I would, therefore, hold that the O. Ps have already perfected their title by adverse possession. That this land was part of Mukunda Sagar was known in 1940 Ruler's decision. Therefore, there is no question of denying this right of the opposite parties. I would therefore reject this revision and upheld the order of the A.D.M. Final Result : Dismissed