JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J This is plaintiffs’ appeal against a reversing judgment. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff no.1 and his father were serving under Ex-Zamindar Radha Prasanna Das. The father of plaintiff no.1 was working in the temple belonging to the said Zamindar. Plaintiff no.1 was engaged to clean the temple courtyard and pluck flowers for the deity. They approached the Zamindar and his wife-defendant no.4 to provide a piece of land for construction of a house. They permitted plaintiff no.1 and his father to occupy an area admeasuring Ac.0.05 dec. appertaining to Khata No.113, Plot No.394 of Mouza-Sahadevkhunta. Accordingly, they occupied Ac.0.05 dec. of land corresponding to M.S Plot No.56 and 56/973. Plaintiff no.1 constructed a thatched house and resided thereon with his family members. Subsequently, he occupied adjoining land in C.S. Plot No.394 corresponding to M.S Plot No.55/1226. The State Government acquired a portion of land measuring Ac.2.20 dec. in C.S Plot No.394 for establishment of the bus stand. Compensation was paid. There was a partition between defendant no.4 and her daughter. Thereafter, defendant no.4 offered the plaintiffs to sell the entire land under her occupation. The plaintiffs asserted that they had acquired title over the suit land by way of adverse possession and eventually there was no necessity for them to purchase the same. But then defendant no.4 executed a benami deed in favour of one Gobinda Behari Das and exerted pressure on them, as a result of which plaintiff no.2 purchased Ac.0.05 dec. of land from defendant no.5 for a consideration of Rs.2500/- on 5.1.1973. The said land has been recorded in the name of plaintiff no.2 in M.S record-of-right in Plot Nos.56 and 56/973. The rest land appertaining to M.S Plot No.55/1126 admeasuring Ac.0.37 dec. under the occupation of the plaintiffs had been recorded in the name of defendant no.2 with note of possession of plaintiff no.2. The settlement authority had recorded the suit land in the name of defendant no.2 in the ROR published on 18.12.1986. While the matter stood thus, the Tahasildar, Balasore initiated L.E Case No.11(10) of 1982 and issued notice to the plaintiff no.2 on the ground that in the year 1974, defendant no.1 acquired the land and delivered possession to defendant no.2 for the purpose of establishing OSRTC bus stand. Plaintiff no.2 filed objection to the same. The case was dropped on 22.11.1982. Plaintiff no.2 filed objection to the same. The case was dropped on 22.11.1982. Challenging the same, defendant no.1 preferred appeal before the S.D.O., Balasore. The appellate authority directed eviction of plaintiff no.2. Against the said order, plaintiff no.2 filed revision before the R.D.C., Cuttack. The revisional authority upheld the order passed by the S.D.O. Basing on the order passed by the S.D.O., some labourers of defendant no.2 tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs. Since there is no passage from the house of the plaintiffs connecting the road from Balasore to Remuna, the plaintiffs are using Plot No.1127 as their passage. The State Government by virtue of acquisition of the land managed to get the suit land recorded in the name of defendant no.1. With this factual scenario, the plaintiffs instituted the suit in the court of the learned Addl. Subordinate Judge, Balasore for declaration of right, title and interest over Schedule-Ka land, declaration of right to passage over Schedule-Kha land and for correction of major settlement record-of-right. 3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, defendants 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It is stated that the disputed land was acquired by defendant no.1 for construction of the bus stand. After acquisition, the State Government delivered possession of the suit land to defendant no.2 for the purpose of construction of the bus stand. No title has ever accrued to plaintiff no.1 by way of adverse possession. The defendants disputed the easementary right of the plaintiffs over Schedule-Kha land for communication to Balasore-Remuna road. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck eight issues. To substantiate the case, the plaintiffs had examined seven witnesses and on their behalf, ten documents had been exhibited. On behalf of the defendants, two witnesses had been examined and eleven documents exhibited. Learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiffs had acquired title over ‘Ka’ Schedule land by way of adverse possession and accordingly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Assailing the judgment and decree of the learned trial court, defendant nos.1 and 3 filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Balasore, which was subsequently transferred to the court of learned Addl. District Judge, Balasore and re-numbered as S.J.A No.1/17 of 1993/90. Assailing the judgment and decree of the learned trial court, defendant nos.1 and 3 filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Balasore, which was subsequently transferred to the court of learned Addl. District Judge, Balasore and re-numbered as S.J.A No.1/17 of 1993/90. The learned appellate court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court and allowed the appeal. It is apt to state here that during pendency of the second appeal, the appellant no.1 died, where after his legal representatives have been brought on record. 5. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: “1. Whether the findings of the court below on the point of easement and adverse possession are in accordance with law ? 6. Mr. Rao, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, argued with vehemence that the father of plaintiff no.1 was working under Ex-landlord Radha Prasanna Das. Plaintiff no.1 was also working under him. They approached the Ex-landlord and his wife-defendant no.4 to provide a piece of land for residential purpose. Defendant no.4 and her husband permitted plaintiff no.1 and his father to occupy Ac.0.05 dec. of land under Khata No.113, Plot No.394 of Mouza-Sahadevkhunta. In the year 1952, plaintiff no.1 constructed a thatched house over the same and resided thereon with his family members. He subsequently occupied the adjoining area towards the eastern side of the suit land. He enclosed the said land with Ac.0.05 dec. within a compact block. He had also erected a permanent wall in the eastern side and remained in possession over the same. After partition between defendant no.4 and her daughter, former offered the plaintiffs to sell the entire land under her occupation. She threatened to execute the deed in favour of another man. Finally, defendant no.4 alienated Ac.0.05 dec. of land in favour of plaintiff no.2 by means of registered sale deed dated 5.1.1973 for a valid consideration. The land was recorded in his name in the settlement ROR but the rest land i.e. Ac.0.37 dec. appertaining to M.S Plot No.55/1226 was recorded in favour of defendant no.2 with a note of possession of plaintiff no.2. He further submitted that initiation of encroachment proceeding initiated by the Tahasildar, Balasore is bad in law. The land was recorded in his name in the settlement ROR but the rest land i.e. Ac.0.37 dec. appertaining to M.S Plot No.55/1226 was recorded in favour of defendant no.2 with a note of possession of plaintiff no.2. He further submitted that initiation of encroachment proceeding initiated by the Tahasildar, Balasore is bad in law. The plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land peacefully, continuously and hostile animus to the defendants for more than the statutory period and as such, acquired title by way of adverse possession. He further contended that the suit was decreed and defendant no.4 has not filed appeal. At the behest of the appeal filed by defendant nos.1 to 3, it was not open for the learned appellate court to interfere with the findings of the learned trial court and set aside the decree. The finding recorded by the learned appellate court is perverse. 7. Per contra, Mr. Panda, learned Addl. Government Advocate for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the plaintiffs had purchased ‘Ka’ schedule land on 5.1.1973, vide Ext.2. The land was acquired by the State of Orissa for construction of bus stand. There is no pleading with regard to the date of entry into the suit land by the plaintiff. Possession of the plaintiffs was permissive. It can never be adverse unless hostile animus is expressed to the knowledge of the owner. Learned appellate court has rightly negatived the plea of adverse possession. He further contended that in the absence of any pleading with regard to right of easement and when an alternative way of passage is available to the suit property, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief of easementary right. 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 . 8. Mr. Pattnaik, learned Senior Advocate for the respondent no.2, submitted that the assertion of plaintiff no.1 that his father possessed Ac.0.05 dec. of land in the year 1952 is based on no evidence. No written grant was filed. The possession of the plaintiff was permissive. An area of Ac.0.32 dec. of land was acquired in the year 1962 and handed over to the OSRTC-defendant no.2 for bus stand. The same was for the public purpose. The possession of the land was duly delivered by the State Government. No written grant was filed. The possession of the plaintiff was permissive. An area of Ac.0.32 dec. of land was acquired in the year 1962 and handed over to the OSRTC-defendant no.2 for bus stand. The same was for the public purpose. The possession of the land was duly delivered by the State Government. Defendant no.4 had received the compensation. Placing reliance on Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the L.A Act”), he submitted that after acquisition of the land, the property vested absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. The right of passage, if any, over the land in question had been extinguished after acquisition of the land in the year 1962. He further contended that Ac.0.48 dec. of land including Ac.0.31 dec. (Schedule-Ka) was acquired by the State of Orissa under Section 4 of the L.A Act on 27.10.1970, Ext.D/1. The possession of the land was handed over to OSRTC vide Ext.G/1. The final ROR was published in the year 1986 in the name of OSRTC. There is no mention of right of way over Plot No.1127 in the ROR. The right of way, if any, can be claimed, if there is no other passage to the dominant heritage. There is no pleading or proof about the date of entry into the suit land. The suit for declaration of title on the basis of adverse possession is not maintainable. The bus stand is functioning over the suit land by raising boundary wall. There is no existence of the road. 9. 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. 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.” 10. Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act provides that – 16. Power to take possession. — When the Collector has made an award under section 11, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. 11. The State of Orissa issued a notification under Section 4 of the L.A Act on 27.10.1970 for acquisition of Ac.0.48 dec. of land appertaining to Plot No.394 of Mouza-Sahadev Khunta for the purpose of construction of bus stand at Balasore, vide Ext.D/1. Notification under Section 6 of the L.A Act was issued on 26.10.1973, vide Ext.E/1. The compensation was paid to the land oustee. The State became the paramount owner of the land. The possession was duly delivered to the OSRTC-defendant no.2. The land was recorded in the name of defendant no.2 in the M.S ROR. Notification under Section 6 of the L.A Act was issued on 26.10.1973, vide Ext.E/1. The compensation was paid to the land oustee. The State became the paramount owner of the land. The possession was duly delivered to the OSRTC-defendant no.2. The land was recorded in the name of defendant no.2 in the M.S ROR. Neither there is any pleading or evidence with regard to the date of entry of the father of the plaintiff no.1 into the suit land. The assertion of the plaintiffs that they have perfected title by way of adverse possession is unfounded and baseless. On one hand the plaintiffs claimed title by way of adverse possession, but on the other hand they assert that they have purchased Ac.0.05 dec. of land from defendant no.4 by mean of registered sale deed dated 5.1.1973. Thus there is no hostile animus. Plaintiff no.1 has admitted in his evidence that he occupied Schedule-Ka land with permission of defendant no.4. Thus he was in permissive possession of the suit land. Once possession begins with the permission, it can never become adverse unless hostile animus is expressed to the knowledge of the true owner. Any alienation of land after the land was acquired by the State is void and confers no title. 12. P.W.1 in his evidence has stated that he has a separate passage in respect of which the settlement map has been prepared. P.W.3 deposed that P.W.1 used to resort to a passage adjoining to the land of some Agrawal. Thus alternative way of passage is available. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 13. As a sequel to the above discussions, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.