JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - The suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from recovering a sum of Rs. 2821.50 p imposed in O.P.L.E. Case No. 415/68.237/70 and 12/71. 2. Case of the Plaintiff-Appellant is that he is the owner in possession of a piece of vacant house site in Jeypore town covered under Khata No. 116. Plot No. 551 extending to an area of Ac. 0.149 cents for more than forty years. In absence of the Plaintiff the land was wrongly recorded in the name of the Government during settlement operation in the year 1964 and on the basis of such wrong entry Defendant No. 2. Tahasildar, Jeypore started O.P.L.E. Case Nos. 415/68. 237/70 and 12/71 and imposed assessment and penalty amounting to Rs. 2621.50 p. The Plaintiff having come to know about the wrong entry made in the settlement, filed objection before the Asst. Settlement Officer and after enquiry the Asst. Settlement Officer recorded a finding that the Plaintiff is in possession of the house site for more than 30 years and accordingly directed to record the name of the Plaintiff in respect of the site. Even after the aforesaid order was passed the Tahsildar. Jeypore started taking steps for recovery of the amount, as a result of which the suit had been filed. 3. The Defendants filed written statement stating that the Plaintiff is not in possession of the suit site since more than thirty years and the suit is hit u/s 16 of the O.P.L.E. Act which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. It is further stated in the written statement that since assessment and penalty had been imposed in exercise of powers under the O.P.L.E. Act and O.P.O.H. Act. there cannot be order of injunction restraining the Defendant No. 2 from recovering the amount. 4. At the first instance the suit was dismissed on 30.9.1982 and an appeal was carried by the Plaintiff before the learned District Judge, Koraput in Title Appeal No. 31 of 1983. Learned Additional District Judge. Koraput who heard the appeal allowed the same and remitted the suit to the trial Court with a direction to frame an issue as to whether the Plaintiff had been in possession of the suit site for more than 30 years prior to commencement of O.P.L.E. cases. Learned Additional District Judge. Koraput who heard the appeal allowed the same and remitted the suit to the trial Court with a direction to frame an issue as to whether the Plaintiff had been in possession of the suit site for more than 30 years prior to commencement of O.P.L.E. cases. After remand of the case, from the lower appellate Court the learned Subordinate Judge, Jeypore framed an additional issue and decreed the suit. 5. The learned Subordinate Judge after remand framed four issues including the additional issue and issue No. 1 and 4 relate to maintainability of the suit as well as claim of the Plaintiff's possession over the suit site for more than 30 years. On consideration of the evidence on record the learned Subordinate Judge came to a conclusion that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to examine the question involved and the suit was maintainable. He also found the Plaintiff to be in possession from the year 1936 and on the above finding decreed the suit. 6. Respondents carried an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Jeypore and the lower appellate Court dismissed the suit and allowed the appeal on the finding that there is absolutely no evidence oh record to show that the Plaintiff has used the suit site since 1936 and at best possession of the Plaintiff over the suit site can be held to be from the year 1944. Having come to a conclusion that the Plaintiff came to possess of the suit site in the year 1944 the lower appellate Court also found that by the time the O.P.L.E. cases were initiated the Plaintiff had not completed 30 years of possession. 7. At the time of admission of the appeal this Court formulated the following substantial question of law. Whether application of OPLE Act. 1972 to the instant case is at all legal and is not liable to be set aside. 8. Referring to the substantial question of law as stated above the learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the evidence on record clearly go to show that the Plaintiff came into possession of the suit premises sometime in the year 1936 and by the time first encroachment case was initiated under O.P.L.E. Act in the year 1968 he had already 30 years of possession. Relying on the two decisions of this Court which I will deal with the later on learned Counsel submitted that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit and Plaintiff having completed 30 years of possession by the time O.P.L.E. cases were initiated had perfected title by adverse possession and the lower appellate Court could not have dismissed the suit. Learned State counsel on the other hand submitted that the lower appellate Court having reversed the finding with regard to possession there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the finding of fact in a Second Appeal. He further submitted that the finding of the lower appellate Court that the Plaintiff came into possession of the suit site sometime in the year 1944 is based on some reasons and should not be disturbed. 9. Considering the submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the substantial questions of law formulated by this Court, two points emerge for determination in the present appeal. (i) Whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit; and (ii) Whether the Plaintiff had completed 30 years of possession over the suit premises by the time O.P.L.E. cases were initiated and whether he had perfected title by way cl adverse possession. 10. So far as the first point is concerned, reference may be made to a decision of this Court in the case of Ghasi Khamari and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors. ILR (1980) 1 Cuttack 532. In the said decision, this Court held that the Civil Court would have jurisdiction to examine the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in question and if Petitioners are able to show that they had been in unauthorised occupation for more than thirty years before the proceeding commenced, the proceeding under the Act would not be maintainable and. therefore, the direction under the order of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act. 1972 would be without jurisdiction. In Anr. decision of this Court in the case of Damodar Mohapatra and Anr. v. State of Orissa and Ors. Vol. 34 (1968) 1 CUT 956. same view was. expressed by this Court. therefore, the direction under the order of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act. 1972 would be without jurisdiction. In Anr. decision of this Court in the case of Damodar Mohapatra and Anr. v. State of Orissa and Ors. Vol. 34 (1968) 1 CUT 956. same view was. expressed by this Court. Therefore, in view of what has been decided by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions, whether Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit is dependant on whether the Plaintiff has completed 30 years of possession over the disputed site by the time action under OPLE Act is taken. Since the first question is dependant on the second one, I would like to deal with the question of possession now. Learned Subordinate" Court referring to the evidence of P.W.2 and 3 came to conclusion that the Plaintiff came into possession of the suit site sometime in the year 1936, the lower appellate Court referring to the evidence came to conclusion that the Plaintiff came into possession of the suit site sometime in the year 1944. Admittedly, prior to vesting the suit land belonged to Ex-Maharaja of Jeypore. The land 'vested in the State Government in the year 1952 and with effect from that date the State Government became owner of the property. Thirty years of possession has to be calculated for the purpose of finding out whether such possession was adverse to be the true owner thereof. In the case the State Government became owner of the property after vesting in the year 1952 and therefore in my view 30 years period has to be calculated from the date, the property vested in the State Government. Though on evidence no date is found on which he land vested in the State Government, there is no dispute that in the year 1952 vesting took place. Even if the Plaintiff is found to be in possession of the suit site from the year 1936 or from the year 1944 for the purpose of such possession being adverse to the true owner, the same has to be taken into account from the year 1952 when the State Government became owner of the property. Admittedly, the first encroachment case was initiated in the year 1968 by which time the Plaintiff had no; completed 30 years. Admittedly, the first encroachment case was initiated in the year 1968 by which time the Plaintiff had no; completed 30 years. In view of the above finding, I am of the view that the decisions referred to by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, shall have no application to the facts of this case. Accordingly. I am of the view that the lower appellate Court was' legally correct in dismissing the suit by allowing the appeal. 11. In view of the discussions and findings indicated above. I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same stands dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed