JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. The defendants are the appellants against a reversing judgment. 2. Respondents as plaintiffs instituted T.S. No.57 of 1989 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aska for a declaration of title, confirmation of possession and in the alternative for recovery of possession in case the plaintiffs are found to have been dispossessed from the suit land during pendency of the suit impleading the appellants as defendants. 3. The following family tree would show the relationship of the parties. Family Tree Rasul Khan No. I (dead) Mohammed Khan No. I (dead) Rasul Khan No. II (dead) Fazal Khan (plaintiff No.2) Kadar Khan (dead) Mohamed Khan No. II (Plaintiff No.1) Usman Khan (Plaintiff No.3) The case of the plaintiffs is that Rassul Khan No. I, great grandfather of plaintiff nos.1 & 3 and grandfather of plaintiff no.2 occupied a piece of Paramboke land measuring Ac.0.748 dec. for more than 100 years ago. The same was recorded as Gramakantha. He constructed a dwelling house over a portion thereof. After his death, plaintiffs continued to enjoy the suit property. While the matter stood thus, the Revenue Authority started encroachment proceeding against them under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act (hereinafter referred to as “the OPLE Act”). They are in possession over the suit property openly, peacefully and with hostile animus to the knowledge of all concerned and thereby perfected title by way of adverse possession. It is further pleaded that during subsequent settlement operation, the settlement authority recorded an area of Ac.0.470 dec. out of Ac. 0.748 dec. in their favour and issued khatian. The remaining Ac.0.278 dec. of land was recorded as Rakhit for grass field. Ac.0.278 dec. of land is the subject-matter of dispute in the suit. Thus the plaintiffs filed the suit claiming the aforesaid reliefs. 4. Pursuant to issuance of summons, defendants entered appearance and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It is stated that the suit land is a Government land. The State Government has the right over the same. The plaintiffs encroached upon an area of Ac.0.16 cents initially and subsequently it was extended to Ac.0.28 cents. During settlement operation, the settlement authority, after due enquiry, recorded Ac.0.470 dec. as Gharbari status in favour of Mohamed Khan, Fazil khan and Ussman Khan. The State Government has the right over the same. The plaintiffs encroached upon an area of Ac.0.16 cents initially and subsequently it was extended to Ac.0.28 cents. During settlement operation, the settlement authority, after due enquiry, recorded Ac.0.470 dec. as Gharbari status in favour of Mohamed Khan, Fazil khan and Ussman Khan. The suit land was not recorded since the same was not in their possession. Thus the question of acquisition of title by adverse possession does not arise. 5. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck eight issues. Out of which, issue nos.3, 4 and 5 are pivotal. The same are: “3. Whether the plaintiff has got right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule properties ? 4. Whether the plaintiffs have perfected their title over the suit schedule land by way of adverse possession ? 5. Whether the suit land is a Government land and the plaintiffs are liable to be evicted therefrom ?” 6. To prove the case, the plaintiffs had examined three witnesses and on their behalf, eleven documents had been exhibited. The defendants had examined one witness and on their behalf, one document had been exhibited. Learned trial court, on a threadbare analysis of the evidence on record as well as pleadings, came to hold that the suit land is a Government land. The same has been rightly recorded in favour of the Government in the settlement operation. It further held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the possession over the suit land and negatived the claim of title by way of adverse possession and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned trial court, filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Berhampur, which was subsequently transferred to the learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Berhampur and re-numbered as Title Appeal No.6/59 of 1998/1997. The learned appellate court allowed the appeal. 7. The second appeal was admitted on Ground Nos. B and C enumerated in the appeal memo. The same are quoted below; “B. Whether in order to pass a decree for adverse possession a plea is required at least to show when possession became adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected can be find out. 7. The second appeal was admitted on Ground Nos. B and C enumerated in the appeal memo. The same are quoted below; “B. Whether in order to pass a decree for adverse possession a plea is required at least to show when possession became adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected can be find out. Neither in the plaint nor in the evidence plaintiff has asserted that from what date he possessed the disputed land but the learned lower appellate court without application of judicial mind has arbitrarily decreed the suit? C. Whether the suit is maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 16 of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act ? 8. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the respondents. 9. Mr. Mishra, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the appellants, submitted that the suit land is a Gramakantha Paramboke. The plaintiffs have encroached a portion of the suit land. A proceeding under the OPLE Act was initiated against them. A portion of the suit land has been kept reserved in Anabadi Khata for future development. Neither the plaintiffs nor their ancestors were in possession of the land. He further submitted that the date of entry into the suit land has not been mentioned. The assertion of the plaintiff that they have perfected title by way of adverse possession is unfounded and baseless. No foundational fact with regard to adverse possession exists. He relied on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India (2004) 10 SCC 779 . 10. Per contra, Mr. Nanda, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the learned trial court without considering the materials in its proper perspective has dismissed the suit. Challenging the judgment and decree, the plaintiffs filed appeal before the learned appellate court. The learned appellate court, after hearing the parties, allowed the same on the ground that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property since 1946, they filed the suit in the year 1989 and as such, they have perfected title by way of adverse possession. They are in possession over the suit land uninterruptly, continuously and with the knowledge of the defendants. He further submitted that the documents submitted by the plaintiffs are public documents issued by the State Government. They are in possession over the suit land uninterruptly, continuously and with the knowledge of the defendants. He further submitted that the documents submitted by the plaintiffs are public documents issued by the State Government. The State has not produced any clear and cogent material to disbelieve the same and as such, the appeal filed by the State being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. 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. 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) 12. 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) 12. 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. The date of entry into the suit land has not been mentioned. The bald assertion that more than 100 years ago the common ancestor of the plaintiffs possessed the suit land is not suffice. The suit land has been recorded in the name of the Government. The nature of the land is Gramakantha Paramboke. Long and continuous possession by itself would not constitute adverse possession as held by the apex Court in the case of Md. Mohammad Ali (Dead) By Lrs. v. Jagadish Kalita and others, (2004) 1 SCC 271. The learned appellate court did not delve deep into the matter. On untenable and unsupportable grounds, the learned appellate court upset the findings of the learned trial court. The substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 13. Resultantly, the plaintiffs’ suit must fail. The appeal is allowed, but in the circumstances of the case, parties are to bear their own costs throughout.