JUDGMENT : A.K. RATH, J. Plaintiff is the appellant against a confirming judgment. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit land was originally “Chakadadan Niskar of Brahmins of Khaparakhai. The same was recorded in the name of Basu Das and others in Sabik R.O.R. of 1914-15. His father started a sweetmeat shop over the same on 1.1.1964. The estate vested in the State in 1965. His father was in possession till his death in the year 1966. Thereafter he is in possession with the knowledge of the State. In 1975 settlement R.O.R., the names of the ex-intermediaries were recorded and the land was kept under Bebandabasti khata. The O.E.A. Collector initiated O.E.A. Case No. 644 of 1986, whereafter the suit plot was recorded in the name of the State with kissam “Urnatta Yojana Yogya”. His father became the tenant under the State. While the matter stood thus, the Tahasildar initiated an Encroachment Case No. 23 of 1982 against him. The Executive Officer, Anandapur N.A.C. also issued eviction notice. Despite the interim order of injunction, the defendants demolished the shop. With this factual scenario, the suit has been filed for declaration of right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and for a further declaration that the order passed by the Tahasildar, Anandpur in Encroachment Case No. 23 of 1982 is void, recovery of possession, damages and permanent injunction impleading the opposite parties as defendants. 3. The defendants 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It is stated that the suit land was a part of Chakadadan Estate of Brahmins of Khaparakhai. The estate vested in the State on 26.8.1965 free from all encumbrances. The father of the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land. Encroachment case was initiated against the plaintiff. The order of eviction was passed in due process of law. The plaintiff is a rank trespasser. The Executive Officer, Anandapur N.A.C., defendant no.3 also filed a written statement. It is stated that the suit plot was earmarked for the market complex of Anandpur N.A.C. The same is located at a distance of 20 feet from Jajpur Road-Keonjhar State High Way, which was causing inconvenience to the general public. For completion market complex and to allot shop rooms to different persons including the plaintiff, the plaintiff was directed to shift the shop. For completion market complex and to allot shop rooms to different persons including the plaintiff, the plaintiff was directed to shift the shop. Accordingly notice was issued. The plaintiff was in unauthorized occupation of the suit land. In the additional written statement, the defendants have a taken plea that after dismissal of application for injunction, the Executive Officer, Anandapur N.A.C sent a notice to the plaintiff for his unauthorised construction but the plaintiff refused to accept the said notice. On 1.9.2003 in presence of police and Magistrate, the shop was demolished. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed nine issues. Both the parties had examined the witnesses in respect of their cases and several documents had been exhibited. On a threadbare analysis of the evidence on record as well as pleadings, the learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff has not perfected title by way of adverse possession and dismissed the suit. Thereafter the plaintiff had unsuccessfully challenged the said judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Anadapur before the learned District Judge, Keonjhar in R.F.A.No.36 of 2007. The same was dismissed. 5. Mr. D.P. Mohanty, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the father of the plaintiff started a sweetmeat shop over the suit land. The land was originally belonged to ex-intermediary. After vesting in the State, his father became a deemed tenant. After his death, the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land for more than a statutory period peacefully, continuously with the hostile animus to the true owner and, as such, he has perfected title by way of adverse possession. Initiation of encroachment proceeding is bad in law. Further defendant no.3 without notice has demolished the shop and, as such, the plaintiff is entitled to damages. 6. Per contra, Mr. Panda, learned Additional Government advocate submitted that the plaintiff was a rank trespasser. For his unauthorized occupation of the suit land, encroachment case was initiated. Anandapur N.A.C. had also issued notice to the plaintiff for his illegal occupation of the suit land. 7. 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. 7. 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. 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) 8. The suit land was originally belonged to ex-intermediary estate. The estate vested in the State on 26.8.1965 free from all encumbrances. For illegal occupation of the land, the Tahasildar had initiated encroachment case and order of eviction was passed. The defendant no.3 issued a notice to the plaintiff for removal of encroachment. Thereafter encroachment was removed. The learned trial court came to hold that there is neither any pleading nor evidence with regard to element of hostile animus. The same was confirmed by the appellate Court. Further the plaintiff had made an application to defendant no.3, vide Ext. The defendant no.3 issued a notice to the plaintiff for removal of encroachment. Thereafter encroachment was removed. The learned trial court came to hold that there is neither any pleading nor evidence with regard to element of hostile animus. The same was confirmed by the appellate Court. Further the plaintiff had made an application to defendant no.3, vide Ext. ‘G’ for allotment of a shop by the Municipality on the basis of a printed receipt of security deposit of Rs.10,000/-. Thus, the plaintiff admits the title of the true owner. Both the courts below negatived the plea of adverse possession. There is no perversity or illegality in the findings of the courts below. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, since the same does not involve any substantial questions of law.