JUDGMENT : A.K. Parichha, J. - The unsuccessful Plaintiff is in appeal against the judgment passed by learned First Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Cuttack in Title Suit No. 797 of 1987. 2. The Plaintiff's case in brief was that the land described in Schedule 'A' of the plaint was the Anabadi land belonging to the Ex-Zamindar Choudhury Ismail Khan, but by virtue of a lease deed granted by the said Zamindar, he reclaimed the said land in the year 1942 for agricultural purpose, possessed the same raising different crops thereon, paid annual rent to the Zamindar and obtained rent receipts. Plaintiff alleged that in the year 1965, Defendant Respondent No. 6 suddenly claimed title over the suit land on the plea that the land has been transferred to it by the Tahasildar (Sadar), Cuttack. He raised protest, but Tahasildar (Sadar), Cuttack maintained that the suit land belongs to the Government of Orissa and has been transferred to Defendant No. 6. The Plaintiff also pleaded that there was a land acquisition proceeding vide L.A. Case No. 250 of 1978 in respect of the suit land, but no award was passed on the assumption that the suit land belongs to the Government, where after he filed a petition for reference of the matter to the Civil Court u/s 30 of the L.A. Act and the matter was referred to the Civil Judge and learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Cuttack held that he (the Plaintiff) is the owner in possession of the suit land. After this decision, he approached the Defendants to vacate the suit land or in the alternative to pay compensation for that land, but such prayer was not honoured on the plea that the reference of the Land Acquisition Proceeding u/s 30 of the L.A. Act was under a misconception. The Plaintiff pleaded that he filed OJC No. 2083 of 1984 before this Court seeking compensation for title suit land, but this Court rejected that prayer with observation that it is open to the Plaintiff to take recourse to other remedy available under the law. Therefore, after serving notice u/s 80, Code of Civil Procedure, on the Defendants he filed the suit for declaration of his right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over the suit land, or permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with his possession or in the alternative to pay compensation in respect of the suit land. Therefore, after serving notice u/s 80, Code of Civil Procedure, on the Defendants he filed the suit for declaration of his right, title, interest and confirmation of possession over the suit land, or permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with his possession or in the alternative to pay compensation in respect of the suit land. Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 did not contest the said suit, but Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 filed joint written statement denying averments of the plaint and pleading inter alia that the rent receipts, entry in the Jamabandi book are all fabricated documents created by the Plaintiff in connivance with some officials and that by practicing fraud he got the matter referred to the Civil Court u/s 30 of the L.A. Act and managed to obtain an observation that he is the owner in possession of the suit land, although, such adjudication and finding are beyond the scope of Section 30 of the L.A. Act. They pleaded that the reference u/s 30 of the Act was under misconception and the Land Acquisition Collector also wrote to Subordinate Judge, Cuttack for withdrawal of that proceeding. The Defendants specifically pleaded that the Zamindar never granted any lease in respect of the suit land in favour of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff never possessed the suit land. According to them, the suit land is a Govarnment land, which was lying vacant and was transferred to Defendant No. 6 for public purpose and for that reason, there was no land Acquisition Proceeding. The Defendants also challenged the maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation and lack of cause of action. 3. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court: (i) Is there any cause of action to file the suit? (ii) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (iii) Whether the Plaintiff has right, title interest over the suit land for which he is entitled for the same or in alternative compensation and damages for the said land? (iv) To any other relief to which the Plaintiff is entitled? 4. (ii) Is the suit maintainable in its present form? (iii) Whether the Plaintiff has right, title interest over the suit land for which he is entitled for the same or in alternative compensation and damages for the said land? (iv) To any other relief to which the Plaintiff is entitled? 4. The Plaintiff examined one witness and filed some rent receipts, certified copy of the tenants ledger dated 16.4.1982, certified copy of the orders passed by the Subordinate Judge, (First Court), Cuttack, certified copy of the order passed in OJC No. 2085 of 1984, copy of the notice u/s 80, Code of Civil Procedure, and the application u/s 13 of the L.A. Act filed before the LAO, which were marked as Exts. 1 to 7 respectively. The Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 examined one witness, but did not produce any document. On consideration of all these evidence, learned trial Court came to hold that the Plaintiff has no right, title over the suit land, that he was out of possession since 1965, that the suit is barred by limitation and it is also not maintainable and consequently dismissed the suit. The present appeal is against that judgment and decree. 5. Mr. S. Dash, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that when the Plaintiff-Appellant produced rent receipts and tenant ledger in support of the lease his initial onus was discharged. So, when Defendants alleged that those documents are forged ones, the burden of proving that the documents are fake and fraudulent ones was on the Defendants. He stated that when the Defendants failed to discharge this onus by producing credible evidence, the documents should have been accepted as genuine and necessary inference should have been drawn in favour of the Plaintiff-Appellants. He also argued that the Subordinate Judge, 1st Court, Cuttack in the proceeding u/s 30 of the L.A. Act gave positive ruling that the Plaintiff is the owner of the suit land and that order was not set aside by any appellate forum; so the right title of the Plaintiff over the suit land should have been inferred by the trial Court. Mr. Dash argued that the defence in the suit was liable to be struck off as the W.S. had not been signed or verified by a competent officer representing the State. Mr. Dash argued that the defence in the suit was liable to be struck off as the W.S. had not been signed or verified by a competent officer representing the State. He also challenged the finding of the trial Court that the Plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land on the plea that admission of the Plaintiff that the suit land was vacant in 1965 does not mean that he was not in possession. In this regard, he relied on the case of Sita Ram Bhau Patil Vs. Ramchandra Nago Patil (Dead) by Lrs. and Another. In essence, Mr. Dash alleged that the impugned judgment is contrary to the materials on record and also the settled legal position. 6. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents 1 to 4 and Mr. S.K. Panda, learned Standing Counsel (Central) appearing for Respondents 5 & 6 supported the impugned judgment and submitted inter alia that a Plaintiff's case can succeed on its own merit and not on the weakness of the Defendant's case. They submitted that the Plaintiff claimed title and possession over the suit land on the basis of a lease granted by Ex-Zamindar Choudhury Ismail Khan and admitted that he is in possession of that document but he neither produced the lease document nor examined the Ex-Zamindar or his successors or any of the officials, who prepared the lease document. According to them, rent receipts are self-serving documents which can be created and as such those documents do not create any title. Learned Counsel for the Respondents also argued that there was admission in the plaint that the Plaintiff was dispossessed in 1965, but the suit was not filed within a period of 12 years from such dispossession and therefore, the same was barred by limitation. About the order of the Subordinate Judge on the proceeding u/s 30 of the L.A. Act, learned Counsels stated that the order has no legal sanctity as proceeding u/s 30 of the L.A. Act is meant for apportionment of shares of the compensation money awarded u/s 11 of the L.A. Act for an acquired land and not for adjudication of right, title over the land. According to them, in view of the observation in O.J.C. No. 2085 of 1984, the order in the proceeding u/s 30 of the L.A. Act cannot be used as evidence in support of the right title of the Plaintiff over the suit land. They claimed that the written statement was not invalid as it was signed and verified by one of the Defendants. 7. The Plaintiff as P.W. 1 stated that he took lease of the suit land from the, then Zamindar Choudhury Ismail Khan in the year 1942 on payment of salami and reclaimed that land spending huge amount and cultivated that land raising various crops, which gave him an annual income of Rs. 15,000/-. He stated that in the year 1965 Defendant No. 6 took possession of the suit land on the plea that it was transferred to him by Defendant No. 1 and therefore, he (Plaintiff) filed petition before L.A. authorities for payment of compensation. He stated that no compensation was paid, so he filed an application u/s 30 of the L.A. Act before L.A.O., Cuttack, who referred the matter to Subordinate Judge, Cuttack, who after considering the materials available observed that there was no land acquisition proceeding in respect of the suit land and no compensation had been paid, but concluded that the Plaintiff is the owner of that land. P.W. 1 also made a statement that by virtue of a lease deed and payment of rent to the Ex-Zamindar and Tahasildar, he acquired right of occupancy over the suit land and his right never extinguished by the provision of vesting under the O.E.A. Act. In support of his statement P. W. 1 proved the rent repeipts (Exts. 1 to 1/E) obtained from Ex-Zamindar and Ext. 2 obtained from Tahasildar. He also filed Ext.3, the certified copy of the tenant ledger, Exts. 4 & 5, the judgments passed by the Subordinate Judge, Cuttack and this Court, Ext. 6, notice u/s 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and Ext. 7, the copy of the application u/s 30 of the L.A. Act. O.P.W. stated that there was no lease as claimed and the documents Exts. 1 to 3 are got up documents, that the Plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land as he himself admitted in the plaint and evidence that he was out of possession since 1965. 8. O.P.W. stated that there was no lease as claimed and the documents Exts. 1 to 3 are got up documents, that the Plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land as he himself admitted in the plaint and evidence that he was out of possession since 1965. 8. P.W. 1 admitted that the lease deed was an unregistered one and it was granted by the Ex-Zamindar on his application and that he was in possession of the same and had filed this lease deed before the Tahasildar. The lease document was not filed in the suit. Neither the Zamindar nor his legal heir was brought as a witness to prove the grant of lease. Similarly, the Manager and Mohurrir of Ex-Zamindar, who allegedly were associated with the grant of lease were also not examined. Contrary to his own statement, the Plaintiff admitted in the cross-examination that though Zamindar granted the lease deed on his application, but no lease deed was drafted or handed over to him. The Plaintiff claimed that after getting lease he reclaimed the suit land by spending Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- and then raised various crops every year in that land. He neither produced any account, receipt or document relating to expenditure on reclamation or agricultural operation. He did not also examine any labourer or field servant in this regard. The Plaintiff candidly admitted that Defendant No. 6 took over possession of the suit land in the year 1965, but relying on the rent receipts claimed that he was in possession of the suit land till 1981. Rent receipts do not themselves create any right, title or possession. The rent receipts filed by him marked as Exts. 1 to 1/e were allegedly granted by the then Zamindar and Ext. 2 by the Tahasildar. The years to which Ext. 1 series relate are not mentioned clearly on the document. Ext. 2 is for the year 1977. Admittedly, the Plaintiff was out of possession since 1965. So, these rent receipts were of no help to prove the possession of the Plaintiff. Similarly, Ext. 3 also cannot help, the Plaintiff's case because its original was not called for or proved and the circumstances under which this entry was made was also not clarified. 9. Ext. A is a certified copy of the order passed by Subordinate Judge, Cuttack in the proceeding u/s 30 of the L.A. Act. Similarly, Ext. 3 also cannot help, the Plaintiff's case because its original was not called for or proved and the circumstances under which this entry was made was also not clarified. 9. Ext. A is a certified copy of the order passed by Subordinate Judge, Cuttack in the proceeding u/s 30 of the L.A. Act. In the aforesaid OJC filed by the Plaintiff this Court clarified that Section 30 of the L.A. Act is meant Jor apportionment of the compensation money and not for declaration of right title of the land. Since, there was no acquisition of the land and no compensation had; been paid, reference u/s 30 of the L.A. Act was misconceived. In such a proceeding, the observation of the reference Court that the Plaintiff has ownership over the suit property has no legal sanctity and does not form basis for. any claim of the Plaintiff over that land. The Plaintiff thus, failed to discharge his initial burden of establishing prima facie title over the suit property. In such back drop, it was immaterial whether the Defendants were, able to show fraud on the part of the Plaintiff in obtaining the documents. 10. In paragraphs 2 and 8 of the plaint, the Plaintiff admitted that the Defendant No. 6 took over possession of the suit land in 1965 and remained in possession thereafter. There is no evidence that the Plaintiff ousted the Defendant No. 6 and repossessed that land. So the ratio of the case of Sita Ram Bhau Patil (supra) has no application to this case. A suit for right, title and recovery of possession has to be filed within 12 years from the date of dispossession as per Article 65 of the Limitation Act. The present suit was filed in the year 1987, which was 22 years after the dispossession. So the same was barred by limitation. Admittedly, there was no acquisition proceeding for the suit land and no compensation was paid to anyone. The Plaintiff failed to prove that he was the owner in possession of the suit land at the time of alleged acquisition of land. That being so, there was no cause of action for the Plaintiff to claim compensation for the suit land. 11. The Plaintiff failed to prove that he was the owner in possession of the suit land at the time of alleged acquisition of land. That being so, there was no cause of action for the Plaintiff to claim compensation for the suit land. 11. Learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the defence raised by the Defendants was not maintainable as the written statement was signed and verified by the Executive Engineer, Charbatia (R & B) Division (Defendant No. 4) who was not authorized to represent the State of Orissa. He cited the case of Kailash Chandra Singh and Anr. v. State of Orissa 1987 (II) OLR 254, in this regard, wherein, it was observed that the officer who, had no authority to file the plaint on behalf of the State cannot maintain the suit on behalf of the State. The ratio of that case is not applicable to the present case as the facts situation are totally different. It is legally correct that an officer who has no authority to represent the State cannot sign or verify a plaint on behalf of the State. But, if an officer is made a Defendant in a suit he can certainly filed his written statement and verify the same. In the instant case, the Plaintiff arrayed, Defendant No. 4 as one of the Defendants and Defendant No. 4 signed and verified the written statement for Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 with a certificate that he is acquainted with the facts of the case and the statements made in the written statement are true to his knowledge and information available in official records. In the worst case, if it is held that Defendant No. 4 was not the officer authorized to sign the written statement on behalf of the State, the written statement can be accepted as the written statement of Defendant No. 4. Law is settled that a Defendant can participate and contest a suit without even filing written statement. When Defendant No. 4 filed the written statement and Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 came forward to contest the suit, there was no scope striking out the defence. 12. The foregoing discussions show that the findings of the trial Court are in accordance with the pleadings, evidence and circumstances on record and the approach is not against any settled legal principle. 1 to 4 came forward to contest the suit, there was no scope striking out the defence. 12. The foregoing discussions show that the findings of the trial Court are in accordance with the pleadings, evidence and circumstances on record and the approach is not against any settled legal principle. The impugned judgment and decree are therefore, confirmed and the appeal is dismissed on contest with cost. Final Result : Dismissed