JUDGMENT : DR. A.K.RATH, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.9.1996 and 10.10.1996 respectively passed by the learned District Judge, Keonjhar in T.A No.48 of 1998 reversing the judgment and decree dated 10.10.1988 and 15.10.1988 respectively passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Anandapur in T.S. No.1 of 1987-I. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that his house was washed away in the flood of river Baitarani in the year 1950. Thereafter, he occupied the suit land. He constructed a thatched house over it. He is in peaceful and continuous possession over the suit land since 1950. His possession has been recorded in the ROR. He used to pay holding tax to the N.A.C. While the matter stood thus, the Tahasildar, Anandpur, defendant no.2, passed an order of eviction against him in the year 1983 in an encroachment case. He preferred appeal against the said order before the A.D.M., Keonjhar. The appellate authority set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the S.D.O., Anandapur. The S.D.O., Anandapur by order dated 6.8.1986 in Encroachment Case No.35 of 1986 held that the plaintiff has acquired title over the suit land and then directed him to deposit Rs.910/-towards rent, cess etc. but the same had not been accepted by defendant no.2. With this factual scenario, he filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest and confirmation of possession over the suit land. 3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, defendant nos.1 and 2 entered appearance and filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants is that the suit land is a piece of Government land. The same has been recorded as Abada Jogya Anabadi in the current settlement with the note of possession of the plaintiff. Thereafter, Encroachment Case No.31 of 1983 was initiated against him by defendant no.2. The order of eviction was passed on 3.12.1983. Since the plaintiff did not vacant the land, the R.I., Anandapur was authorised to take physical possession over the suit land. According to the defendants, the plaintiff is not in possession over the suit land for more than the statutory period. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court has framed eight issues, out of which issue nos.6 and 7 are pivotal. The same are quoted below; “6. According to the defendants, the plaintiff is not in possession over the suit land for more than the statutory period. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court has framed eight issues, out of which issue nos.6 and 7 are pivotal. The same are quoted below; “6. Is the plaintiff in possession of the suit land since 1950 flood and has perfected title by way of adverse possession? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed?” 5. To prove the case, the plaintiff had examined four witnesses and on his behalf, eight documents had been exhibited. On behalf of the defendants, one witness had been examined and two documents had been exhibited. 6. Learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff is in possession over the suit land for more than 30 years without any interruption and accordingly decreed the suit. The defendants challenged the judgment and decree of the learned trial court before the learned District Judge, Keonjhar in T.A no.48 of 1988. The same was allowed. 7. The second appeal was admitted on 6.3.1997 on the following substantial questions of law. “1. Whether the lower appellate court committed error basing his finding on the records-of-right showing possession of plaintiff since 1955? And 2. Whether the lower appellate court committed error by not considering the evidence of the plaintiff about his possession since 1950?” 8. Heard Mr. Mukharjee, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. 9. Mr. Mukharjee, learned counsel for the appellants, argued with vehemence that the learned lower appellate court has not assigned any reason while considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4. He further submitted that the courts below should have ignored the recording of forcible possession since 1955 on the ground that such recording is without jurisdiction and is based on no evidence. The settlement authorities are required to record the name of the person found to be in possession. They have no jurisdiction to determine the length of possession. Any such recording is outside the scope of the provisions of Section 11 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act. Such recording is liable to be ignored. He further submitted that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land since 1950 peacefully, continuously and with the hostile animus to the defendants. Any such recording is outside the scope of the provisions of Section 11 of the Orissa Survey and Settlement Act. Such recording is liable to be ignored. He further submitted that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land since 1950 peacefully, continuously and with the hostile animus to the defendants. The findings of the learned lower appellate court that the plaintiff applied for the patta of the land does not mean that he has admitted the title of the State. 10. Per contra, Mr. Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State, submitted that the date of entry of the plaintiff over the suit land has not been mentioned in the plaint. Learned lower appellate court has rightly set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial court. 11. Before proceeding further, it is apt to refer to the decision of the apex Court in the case of Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India (2004) 10 SCC 779 . The apex Court at para 11 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. 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. 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.” 12. On a scanning of the plaint, it is evident that the date of entry of the plaintiff over the suit land has not been mentioned. In Encroachment Case No.35 of 1986, penalty of Rs.910/-was imposed on the plaintiff. The evidence of P.W.1-plaintiff shows that he offered penalty of Rs.910/-to the defendant no.2. Thus the plaintiff has admitted the title of the State. Mere possession over the suit land for long time is not suffice to hold that the plaintiff has perfected title by way of adverse possession, unless the classical requirements of adverse possession “nec vi, nec clam, nec precario” are pleaded and proved. Both the courts below negatived the plea of adverse possession. There is no perversity or illegality in the same. The substantial questions of law are accordingly answered. 13. In the wake of the aforesaid, the appeal, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.