JUDGMENT A. K. PARICHHA, J. — This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Ber¬hampur in Title Appeal No. 17 of 1985 (T.A.No. 56/84, GDC) con¬firming the judgment and decree of learned Munsif, Berhampur in Title Suit No. 74 of 1983. 2. The present appellant as plaintiff filed the above noted suit for injunction against the defendant-respondents in respect of the suit Schedule ‘A’ land. His case in brief was that originally one Erkula Babu was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land for many years and had acquired title over the same. He sold 80 cents of land to the plaintiff in the year 1973 and along with this land he also delivered some more lands situ¬ated in survey plot No. 547. The plaintiff after taking posses¬sion of these lands made some improvements and remained in culti¬vating possession thereof. When the matter stood thus, an en¬croachment case bearing L.E.C. No. 170 of 1975 was initiated against him in respect of the suit land, but the Tahasildar after an enquiry found that the encroachment of the plaintiff and his vendor was more than 60 years and such possession was not objec¬tionable. Accordingly, the said proceeding was dropped under Section 13 of the OPLE Act, 1972 with a direction to the R.I. to record 2 acres of the encroached land in the name of the plain¬tiff. The said order, Ext. 4, was not challenged in any higher forum. The plaintiff accordingly, continued his possession over the suit land. But in the year 1983 another land encroachment case bearing LEC No. 62 of 1983 and M.C.Case No. 3 of 1983-84 were initiated with respect to the Schedule ‘B’ property, which is part of the schedule ‘A’ property, which compelled the plaintiff to file the above noted suit for issue of injunction restraining the respondent-State from disturbing his possession over the suit land. 3. The defendants in their written statement denied the entire claim and allegation of the plaintiff and pleaded inter alia that the plaintiff has no ownership or exclusive possession on the suit property measuring Ac. 3.75 cents and the said land does not come within plot No. 545. 3. The defendants in their written statement denied the entire claim and allegation of the plaintiff and pleaded inter alia that the plaintiff has no ownership or exclusive possession on the suit property measuring Ac. 3.75 cents and the said land does not come within plot No. 545. It was also pleaded that OPLE Case No. 117 of 1975 was decided for 2 acres of land, but the direction for settling 2 acres of land in favour of encroacher-plaintiff was never carried out as the plaintiff did not deposit salami etc. They pleaded that since the plaintiff was in unauthorized occupation of Ac. 0.75 decimals of land, the subse¬quent encroachment case was initiated. It was also pleaded that the suit is not maintainable in the absence of proper notice under Section 80, C.P.C. and also in view of the fact that the proceeding under OPLE Act was pending. In additional written statement, the defendants further pleaded that in T.S.No. 9 of 1978 Kasinath Sahu got a decree for recovery of possession and permanent injunction against the plaintiff for plot Nos. 445 & 1716 and so the plaintiff is estopped from claiming any right over the said property or seeking injunction with respect to that property. 4. From the pleadings of the parties, five issues were framed. Plaintiff examined four witnesses and produced documents which were marked Exts. 1 to 6. Defendants examined two witnesses and adduced documents which were marked as Exts. A to G. On consideration of these evidence learned trial Court dismissed the suit with the findings that the plaintiff has got no right, title, interest over the suit land, that the suit is hit under Section 80 of the C.P.C., that he is estopped from filing the suit in respect of the suit property in view of the decree passed in T.S.No. 9 of 1978 in favour of Kasinath Sahu, that the order of Tahasildar in Ext. 4 is a non-speaking order. Against the said judgment and decree the plaintiff filed appeal. Learned first appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court with the following findings : The suit suffers from non-joinder of Kasinath Sahu, who is a necessary party, the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit as part of the suit property was subject-matter of Title Suit No. 9 of 1978, Ext. Learned first appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court with the following findings : The suit suffers from non-joinder of Kasinath Sahu, who is a necessary party, the plaintiff is estopped from filing the suit as part of the suit property was subject-matter of Title Suit No. 9 of 1978, Ext. 4 would not operate as res judicata as Tahasildar had no authority to decide the right, title, interest over the said property, plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property and he has also not acquired any right, title over the same. The said judgment and decree of the first appellate Court is under challenge in this appeal. 5. Though at the stage of admission several grounds were taken, the substantial questions of law were recast with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties and the following questions were taken for consideration : (i) Whether the Courts below being Civil Courts were competent to decide the correctness of Ext. 4 when the respondents did not challenge the said order in any higher forum ? (ii) Whether the plaintiff-appellant was estopped from filing the present suit in view of the judgment and decree obtained by Kasinath Sahu in T.S.No. 9 of 1978 ? (iii) Whether the observation of learned first appellate Court that Kasinath Sahu is a necessary party and the suit suf¬fers from his non-joinder is legally tenable ? 6. Law is settled through judicial pronouncements as in the cases of Paramananda Pradhan and another v. Palau Sahu & others, 56 (1983) CLT 482 (FB); and Mangulu Jal and others v. Bhagaban Rai and others; 41 (1975) CLT 526 (FB) that the Civil Court normally will not have jurisdiction to decide the correctness or otherwise of an order passed by a statutory Tribunal if such Tribunal is competent to decide the issue in¬volved, but it is always open to the Civil Courts which are the Courts of general jurisdiction to consider and decide whether the statutory Tribunal has acted within the ambit of powers conferred upon it by the statute to which it owes its existence or the provisions of the Act have not been complied with or the Tribunal has not acted in conformity with the principles of judicial procedure or has transgressed the limits placed on its powers by the legislature. But at the same time it has been clarified in the case of Sri Bhanu Ganga Tribhuban Dev v. Tahasildar, Sambalpur and others, AIR 1982 Orissa 83 that subject to appeal every order of the Revenue Tribunal is final and where the right of appeal against a relief granted by the Revenue Officer was not availed by the State, the order of the Revenue Officer in that respect becomes final. Similarly, in the case of R.V.D.Patwari and another v. The Secretary of State for India, I.L.R. 35 Bom¬bay-182 it was observed that doctrines of estoppel and acquiescence would not be applicable to the suit of Government by 60 years limitation, the Government being a party to it. In the present case admittedly there was an encroachment proceeding initiated against the plaintiff-appellant bearing OPLE Case No. 117 of 1975, but the said case was dropped by the Tahasildar with the observation that the encroacher is in possession of more than 60 years and also with the direction to the R.I. to settle two acres of land in possession of the plaintiff in his favour. The said order of the Tahasildar was never challenged by the State in any higher forum. So, as per ratio of Sri Bhanu Ganga Tribhuban Dev’s case (supra) the orders assumed finality. The Courts below brushed aside this Ext. 4 with the observation that it is a non-speaking order. But the very fact that in the order learned Taha¬sildar has noted that the proceeding was dropped for the reason that the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-interest were in possession for more than 60 years shows that it is a reasoned order. Be that as it may, there can be hardly any dispute that Tahasildar being a Revenue Officer is legally competent to undertake an encroachment proceeding and pass necessary orders in such proceeding after making an enquiry. Since learned Tahasil¬dar, who passed order under Ext. 4 was legally competent to pass such order, the principle laid down in the case cited in 56 (1983) CLT 482 (supra) would not be attracted and Civil Court cannot decide the correctness of that order. 7. According to learned counsel for the appellant, once the order Ext. 4 is found to be legal and valid, the plaintiff would be entitled to maintain the suit for injunction against the State in respect of the suit land. 7. According to learned counsel for the appellant, once the order Ext. 4 is found to be legal and valid, the plaintiff would be entitled to maintain the suit for injunction against the State in respect of the suit land. Since the possession of the plaintiff over 2 acres of land in Savic Plot No. 545 was accepted by the Revenue authorities, there could not be a subsequent encroachment proceeding against the plaintiff for the said land and if any such proceeding for that land is initiated, then the plaintiff can challenge such subsequent proceeding. Here the defendants took the plea that the subsequent encroachment pro¬ceeding was not for the lands involved in earlier encroachment case, but was for some other land measuring Ac. 0.63 decimals. The notice in encroachment proceeding No. 62 of 1983 shows that it relates to 63 cents of land. Therefore, Ext. 4 cannot operate as res judicata for the simple reason that the subsequent encroachment proceeding was not in respect of 2 acres of land involved in the earlier proceeding. 8. Admittedly there was a title suit bearing T.S.No. 9/1978 filed by one Kasinath Sahu in the Court of Munsif, Berham¬pur and in that suit his right, title over one acre of land which form part of the suit land was declared. In fact, his title was declared over the land under plot No. 445 (Old S. No. 545) measuring Ac. 0.125 decimals and Plot No. 1716 (Old S.No. 545) measuring Ac. 0.500 decimals. The certified copy of the judgment, Ext. E, is there in this regard. There were also documents like Exts. C/4 and C/5 which show that lands bearing Hal Plot Nos. 444 and 1347 stand recorded jointly in the names of Kasinath Sahu and his brother Gopinath Sahu. Similarly, Exts. C/1, C/2, C/3 show that lands bearing Hal Plot Nos. 445, 1716 and 1717 stand recorded in the name of Kasinath Sahu. All these lands form part of the suit land. There was also Ext. A/1 showing encroachment of some of the suit land by Ratnamani Padhi. It is also there in evidence that the decree passed in T.S.No. 9/78 was under execu¬tion. Considering the above noted factors learned Courts below observed that Kasinath Sahu is a necessary party to the suit as his right, title over part of the suit land has been declared by competent Court. It is also there in evidence that the decree passed in T.S.No. 9/78 was under execu¬tion. Considering the above noted factors learned Courts below observed that Kasinath Sahu is a necessary party to the suit as his right, title over part of the suit land has been declared by competent Court. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Kasinath Sahu is not a necessary party as no relief has been sought for by the plaintiff against him and, therefore, the suit would be maintainable even in his absence. In support of his plea, he relies on the cases of Parbati Sham Achary v. Smt. Manasi Devi, AIR 1977 Orissa 139; Rajkishore Sahu v. Ajit Kumar Choudhury, 87 (1999) CLT 393 and Ishwara Bhat v. Annappa Naika, AIR 1997 Kerala 165. In the case of Parbati Sham Achary (supra) the defendant did not vacate the house after termination of the tenancy and the relief was sought against him by the landlord-plaintiff. There was nothing on record to show that Government interfered with the possession of the plaintiff at any point of time and so no relief could be sought against the Government. Considering that situation it was held that State Government was not a necessary party for effective adjudication of the dispute. In the case of Rajkishore Sahu v. Ajit Kumar Choudhury (supra) the disputed land which belonged to the State Government stood adjoining the land of the plaintiff and the plaintiff used that land for going to the Cuttack-Puri Road. Since the defendant without any right over the disputed land tried to block the said land thereby blocking the approach of the plaintiff to the Cut¬tack-Puri Road, the plaintiff filed the suit for injunction against the defendant. Since there was no cause of action against the Government it was not necessary to insist upon impletion of the State Government as a party. In the case of Ishwara Bhat v. Annappa Naik (supra) the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent prohibitory injunction on the plea that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, but the defendant who is owner of the adjacent property was interfering with his posses¬sion. There the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was not disputed although the land was Government land. There the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was not disputed although the land was Government land. There¬fore, the Court observed that the person in possession is enti¬tled to a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction against the tres¬passers. In all these cases the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land was not in dispute and impletion of the State was not necessary for effective adjudication of the issues. Accord¬ingly, it was held that the State was not necessary party and the suit would not be invalid for non-joinder of the State Govern¬ment. The ratio of these cases is of no help to the plaintiff-appellant because right, title and possession of part of the suit property have been declared in favour of Kasinath Sahu by a competent Court, some part of the suit property has been recorded in the name of Gopinath Sahu, who claims possession over that land and encroachment proceeding is pending against Ratnamani Padhi for his unauthorized occupation of a portion of the suit land. There were also other evidence, which have been reflected in the impugned judgment showing that the plaintiff is not in exclusive possession of the suit property. That being so, a suit for permanent injunction relating to the entire suit property at the behest of the plaintiff was not maintainable without implead¬ing the persons, who have been declared in possession or are claiming possession over portion of the suit property. The Courts below were, therefore, justified in observing that Kasinath Sahu was a necessary party and the plaintiff was estopped from bring¬ing any suit for injunction with respect to the lands which have been decreed in favour of Kasinath Sahu in Title Suit No. 9 of 1978. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that even if it is accepted that suit for permanent injunction for the part of the suit property, which has been decreed in favour of Kasinath Sahu in T.S.No. 9/78 is not maintainable in the absence of Kasi¬nath Sahu, yet such suit for the rest of the suit land was main¬tainable and therefore, the Courts below were not justified in throwing away the entire suit on the ground of non-joinder of Kasinath Sahu. In this regard, he points out that out of the entire suit land measuring Ac. 3.75 decimals, Plot No. 1716 measuring Ac. 0.500 decimals, Plot No. 1717 measuring Ac. In this regard, he points out that out of the entire suit land measuring Ac. 3.75 decimals, Plot No. 1716 measuring Ac. 0.500 decimals, Plot No. 1717 measuring Ac. 0.040 decimals were decreed in favour of Kasinath Sahu in the suit and Plot No. 444 measuring Ac. 0.200 decimals and Plot No. 1347 measuring Ac. 0.460 decimals stand recorded in the name of Gopinath Sahu and Kasinath Sahu. This submission is of no consequence in view of the concurrent findings of the Courts below that not only Kasinath Sahu and Gopinath Sahu, but some other persons are also in occupation of other portion of the suit land and exclusive possession of the plaintiff over the suit land is not established. These findings have been arrived at after taking consideration of the evidence on record oral and documentary and so this aspect cannot be reopened in the second appeal. 10. All the substantial questions of law are thus answered against the appellant-plaintiff. So the judgment and decree of the Courts below are confirmed and the second appeal is dismissed on contest, but in the peculiar circumstances without any cost. Appeal dismissed.