JUDGMENT : Dr. A.K. Rath, J. 1. Plaintiff is the appellant against a confirming judgment. The suit was for declaration of right, title and interest, orders passed by the Tahasildar, Pallahara as well as Sub-Divisional Officer, Pallahara in a proceeding under Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act are illegal and eviction of defendant nos.1 to 25. 2. The dispute pertains to Ac.2.00 dec. of land appertaining to plot no.1816/4 of mouza-Pallahara. The case of the plaintiff is that he is a landless person. To eke out his livelihood, he reclaimed the Government land and made it fit for cultivation. While the matter stood thus, the Tahasildar, Pallahara, defendant no.28, initiated Encroachment Case No.9/78 for eviction. The Revenue Inspector submitted report stating therein that the land was unobjectionable. The plaintiff was in possession of the same. Rent was assessed at Rs.30/-. He paid the same. Thereafter he filed Encroachment Appeal No.8/83 before the S.D.O., Pallahara, defendant no.27, which was dismissed. It was further pleaded that his son was an employee in the office of the S.D.O., Pallahara. He was not pulling on well with the latter, for which his appeal was dismissed. He is in possession of the land. With this factual scenario, he instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 3. Initially, the defendant nos.26 to 28, State of Orissa and its functionaries were not parties. But subsequently, they were impleaded. Defendant no.26 filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The specific case of the defendant no.26 is that the suit land is a Government land. The same situates in Pallahara town. There is a bushy forest growthed over the disputed land. The suit land is not cultivable. The kissam of the land is Jungle. The same was objectionable. Since the plaintiff was in unauthorised possession of the land, Encroachment Case No.9 of 1978 was initiated against him. The R.I. submitted a report stating that the land was full of bushes. Penalty of Rs.30/- was imposed on the plaintiff for encroachment. Order of eviction was passed. The case was disposed of after affording opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff. He filed encroachment appeal before the S.D.O., Pallahara, which met the same fate. Plaintiff had no right, title and interest over the suit land. Defendant nos.1 to 25 supported the stand of the defendant no.26. 4. Order of eviction was passed. The case was disposed of after affording opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff. He filed encroachment appeal before the S.D.O., Pallahara, which met the same fate. Plaintiff had no right, title and interest over the suit land. Defendant nos.1 to 25 supported the stand of the defendant no.26. 4. On the interse pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck eight issues. Plaintiff adduced evidence, both oral and documentary. No evidence was adduced by the defendants. Learned trial court came to hold that in view of the bar contained in Sec.16 of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act (hereinafter referred to as “OPLE Act”), the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Though it is stated that the orders of encroachment passed by the Tahasildar as well as the appellate authority are bad in law, but the plaintiff failed to prove that there was any procedural defect. Held so, it dismissed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Dhenkanal, which was subsequently transferred to the court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Talcher and renumbered as T.A. No.12 of 1987/2 of 1990. Learned lower appellate court framed an additional issue, “If the plaintiff has perfected his title over the suit land by adverse possession ?” and remitted the matter back to the learned trial court to render a finding. In support of the case, parties adduced evidence. Learned trial court came to hold that plaintiff has perfected title by way of adverse possession. Thereafter, learned lower appellate court took up the appeal. It held that plaintiff had paid penalty of Rs.30/- in the encroachment case. He admitted that he had encroached upon the suit land in the year 1978. The plaintiff has not perfected title by way of adverse possession. It concurred with the finding of the learned trial court with regard to jurisdiction of the civil court and dismissed the appeal. 5. The second appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in ground nos.8(A) and 8(B) of the memorandum of appeal. The same are: “8(A). Whether the statutory authority under the O.P.L.E. Act has not acted in Conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure the competent civil court has jurisdiction to decide right, title and interest of plaintiff ? (B). The same are: “8(A). Whether the statutory authority under the O.P.L.E. Act has not acted in Conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure the competent civil court has jurisdiction to decide right, title and interest of plaintiff ? (B). Whether when the plaintiff perfected his title by adverse possession in respect of the suit land for more than the statutory period against the true owner whether the lower appellate court is right in deciding the issue against the plaintiff on the wrong reading of Ext.A.” 6. Heard Miss Soumya Priyadarshi on behalf of Mr. Asoke Mukherji, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S. Mishra, learned A.S.C. for the State-respondent nos.26 to 28. 7. Miss Priyadarshi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plaintiff belongs to scheduled tribe. He is a landless person. To eke out his livelihood, he reclaimed the land and made it fit for cultivation. He is in possession of the land for more than 30 years peacefully, continuously and with the hostile animus to the defendants. In the encroachment case, he paid the back rent, not penalty. Initiation of encroachment case is bad in law. Further the son of the plaintiff was serving in the office of the S.D.O., Pallahara. He was not pulling on well with the latter, for which the appeal was dismissed. She further submits that after remand, learned trial court rendered a finding that the plaintiff has perfected title by way of adverse possession. On untenable and unsupportable ground, learned lower appellate court upset the same. In spite of the bar contained in Sec.16 of the OPLE Act, the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit for declaration of title. 8. Per contra, Mr. Mishra, learned A.S.C. for the respondent nos.26 to 28 submits that there is no pleading that the plaintiff has perfected title by way of adverse possession. There is also no pleading in the order passed by the authorities under the OPLE Act that the same suffers from procedural infirmities. 9. In State of Orissa vs. Bhanu Mali (Dead) Nurpa Bewa and others, AIR 1996 ORISSA 199, a question arose that whether the decision of the Revenue Officer in the proceeding under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act will operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and recovery of possession. 9. In State of Orissa vs. Bhanu Mali (Dead) Nurpa Bewa and others, AIR 1996 ORISSA 199, a question arose that whether the decision of the Revenue Officer in the proceeding under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act will operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and recovery of possession. This Court held that the decision of the Revenue Officer in the proceeding under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act can neither operate as res judicata nor Sec.16 thereof can stand as a bar relating to the question of title in the subsequent civil suit by the plaintiffs. 10. Notwithstanding the bar contained in Sec.16 of the OPLE Act, the civil court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the complicated question of title. 11. Burden of proof lies on the person who claims to acquire title of the land by way of adverse possession. Adverse possession is not a pure question of law, but a blended one of fact and law. 12. In the celebrated judgment, the Privy Council in the Secretary of State v. Debendra Lal Khan, AIR 1934 Privy Council 23 held that the classical requirement of adverse possession is that the possession should be nec vi nec clam nec precario. Their Lordships quoted with approval the decision in the case of Radhamoni Devi v. The Collector of Khulna and others, Indian Appeals 1900 Vol. XXVII at page 140 that “the possession required must be adequate in continuity, in publicity, and in extent to shew that it is possession adverse to the competitor”. 13. In Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Govt. of India and others, (2004) 10 SCC 779 , the apex Court observed as under :- "In the eye of the law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time won't affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner. It is a well-settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is "nec vi, nec clam, nec precario", that is, peaceful, open and continuous. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner. It is a well-settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is "nec vi, nec clam, nec precario", that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. The court further observed that plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession.” (emphasis laid) 14. There is no foundational fact with regard to adverse possession. The date of entry into the suit land has not been mentioned. Mere possession of the suit land for long time is not suffice to hold that the plaintiffs have perfected title by way of adverse possession, unless the classical requirements of adverse possession nec vi, nec clam, nec precario are pleaded and proved. In the encroachment case, the plaintiff had paid penalty of Rs.30/-. On an anatomy of the pleadings and evidence on record, learned lower appellate court came to hold that the plaintiff has not perfected title by way of adverse possession. There is no perversity or illegality in the same. A person, who is in illegal possession of a forest land, cannot seek declaration of title over the same. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 15. A priori, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.