S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 is appellant in this appeal against decree declaring title of plaintiffs in respect of a tank with its embankment measuring 9 acres 6, decimals and recovery of possession thereof, ( 2 ) CASE of plaintiffs who are respondent Nos. 1 to 55 is that the tank Badabandha was excavated by their ancestors at a time beyond memory who were in peaceful possession of the same till merger of Dhenkanal Princely State on 1-1-1948. From 1948 various litigations continued but plaintiffs continued in possession. In 1958 State Government transferred the tank to Lodhani Grama Panchayat for which some of the plaintiffs filed a suit in 1965 which was dismissed for want of notice under S. 80, C. P. C. , in the year 1970. On 22-31974, Block Deve1opment Officer having notified to put right to catch fish to auction against which plaintiffs objected and auction was stayed. On bifurcation of Ladhani Grama Panchayat, Kander Singha Grama Panchayat put the tank to auction in favour of defendant No. 3 for which suit has been filed for declaration of title, recovery of possession and for perpetual injunction against defendants not to interfere with possession of plaintiffs. ( 3 ) STATE Government and Grama Panchayat filed two written statements, where both of them claimed that the tank had been excavated by the sovereign power of Dhenkanal in the 19th Century. Two ancestors of plaintiffs were Sarbarkar in the village and accordingly, they got their names recorded as owners of the tank in the settlement operation of the year 1923-24, though in the records of 19th Century it was clearly mentioned to be belonging to the sovereign power. After merger of Dhenkanal with effect from 1-1-l948, the tank has been transferred to Lodhani Grama Panchayat which was exercising right over the tank as owner. On bifurcation of Lodhani Grama Panchayat, defendant No. 2 Grama Panchayat is continuing to exercise the right. Thus, plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the tank and the suit is liable to be dismissed. ( 4 ) TWO witnesses were examined on behalf of plaintiffs. Documents marked Exts. 1 to 11 were proved on their behalf. On behalf of defendants nine witnesses were examined and documents marked Exts. A to J, and A / 1 were proved. ( 4 ) TWO witnesses were examined on behalf of plaintiffs. Documents marked Exts. 1 to 11 were proved on their behalf. On behalf of defendants nine witnesses were examined and documents marked Exts. A to J, and A / 1 were proved. Trial Court on consideration of materials, found that plaintiffs have title over the suit property which is still subsisting and decreed the suit for recovery of possession. Valuation of suit at Rs. 5,000/ - held not to be proper and finding that valuation would be Rs. 15, 000/ -. Plaintiffs were called upon to pay the balance Court-fee to make the decree executable. This is grievance of Defendant No. 1 in this appeal. A cross-objection has been filed by Defendant No. 2 against the decree. ( 5 ) ALL the 55 plaintiffs were made respondents and during pendency of this appeal some of the respondents expired. In spite of opportunity being given to appellant to take steps for substitution of legal representatives of deceased-respondents they were not brought on record for which this appeal has been dismissed as per Order No. 22 dt. 22-12-1982 for non-compliance of the peremptory order to take steps for substitution against deceased-respondents No. 12, Bancha Biswal, 20 Arnapurna Biswal, 36 Padmacharan Biswal and 45 Askara Sahoo. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for respondents raised a preliminary objection that on dismissal of the appeal against the aforesaid respondents for non-substitution entire appeal is to be dismissed as any interference with the decree would lead to inconsistency. Learned counsel for the Grama Panchayat submitted that interest of plaintiffs in the suit being common and most of the plaintiffs being on record with legal representatives of the persons against whom the appeal has been dismissed, there is effective representation and therefore, the appeal can be heard on merits. This is also submission on behalf of appellant. ( 7 ) THERE can be no doubt that in case, I allow the appeal and dismiss the suit, there would be two decrees inconsistent to each other. In respect of some plaintiffs the suit would be dismissed and in respect of plaintiffs against whom appeal has been dismissed, decree of title and recovery of possession has become final. ( 7 ) THERE can be no doubt that in case, I allow the appeal and dismiss the suit, there would be two decrees inconsistent to each other. In respect of some plaintiffs the suit would be dismissed and in respect of plaintiffs against whom appeal has been dismissed, decree of title and recovery of possession has become final. If any application would have been filed on behalf of appellant for recalling the order of dismissal of the appeal I might have considered the question of giving opportunity to appellant to bring the legal representatives on record who have been left out or determined whether all the legal representatives are on record. At this stage, it is not known whether all other legal representatives of the deceased respondents are on record. In such circumstances, title of the deceased respondents having stood confirmed on account of dismissal of the appeal as against them, there is no scope to interfere with the decree in respect of other plaintiffs-respondents. When parties claimed joint title and in respect of some. ( 8 ) THIS appeal is an example to executive Government and Legislature to indicate how trust reposed on them by people of the State is not taken care of and Judiciary is put to blame for not appreciating the difficulties they face. If at all the tank belongs to State, the same is lost on account of negligence of persons representing, the Executive Government. In order to get ownership of the tank, a proceeding for compulsory acquisition may be necessary. I am of the strong view that those for whose delinquency the appeal could not be heard on merits, should be made liable for the loss to the State. Negligence is perpetual and passage of time should not be a ground to excuse them. If action in this end is taken, it would be a lesson to others for future and they can also take steps to regularise pending litigations where for some reason State or its officers have become negligent affecting interest of the State. ( 9 ) AS regards cross-objection, defendant No. 2 had no right to challenge the appeal by filing a cross-objection. It could have filed an independent appeal or could have joined with defendant No. 1 to prefer this appeal. Therefore, cross-objection is dismissed as not maintainable. ( 10 ) IN result, appeal is dismissed. ( 9 ) AS regards cross-objection, defendant No. 2 had no right to challenge the appeal by filing a cross-objection. It could have filed an independent appeal or could have joined with defendant No. 1 to prefer this appeal. Therefore, cross-objection is dismissed as not maintainable. ( 10 ) IN result, appeal is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed .