JUDGMENT : A. K. Rath, J - This appeal is by the plaintiff. The suit was for declaration of title, orders of eviction passed by defendant no.2 in Encroachment Case No.70 of 1984 and Encroachment Case No.102 of 1984 are illegal, permanent injunction and certain ancillary reliefs. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that he was appointed as a Behera in Bolagarh Dispensary in the year 1945. He constructed a residential house over a piece of Government land. Since thirty-two years, he is in possession of the land. While matter stood thus, the Additional Tahasildar, Khurda, defendant no.2 initiated Encroachment Case Nos.70 of 1984 and 102 of 1984 against him under the provisions of Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act ("O.P.L.E. Act"). He appeared in the said cases and contended that he was in possession of the land for more than statutory period peacefully, continuously and with the hostile animus to the defendants and, as such perfected title by way of adverse possession. But then, order of eviction was passed. Pursuant to the same, defendant no.3 demolished five rooms on 21.7.1984. He sustained heavy loss. The order of eviction is an infraction of the principle of natural justice. 3. Defendants 4 to 8 entered contest and filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. Subsequently, the defendants were set ex parte. 4. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1. Learned trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had not perfected title by way of adverse possession. Unsuccessful plaintiff filed T.A.No.16 of 1985 before the learned Subordinate Judge, Khurda. Learned appellate court came to hold that the suit is barred under Section 16 of the O.P.L.E. Act. It concurred with the finding of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. It is apt to state here that during pendency of the appeal, the appellant died, whereafter his legal representatives have been substituted. 5. This appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: "Whether the suit has been filed in accordance with the principles laid down in the Full Bench decision of this Court (Mangulu Jal and others v. Bhagaban Roi and others, (1975) ILR(Cut) 789) to avid the bar under Section 16 of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act ?" 6. Heard Mr.Debasis Chhotray, learned Advocate along with Mr. Heard Mr.Debasis Chhotray, learned Advocate along with Mr. Biswajit Moharana, learned Advocate on behalf of Mr.Bijan Ray, Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Swayambhu Mishra, learned A.S.C. for respondent nos. 1 & 2. None appears for respondent nos.3 to 8. 7. Mr.Chhotray, learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the civil court has ample jurisdiction to decide the title. He further submits that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land peacefully, continuously and with the hostile animus to the defendants for more than statutory period and, as such, perfected title by way of adverse possession. The Additional Tahasildar instead of referring the matter to the Sub-Collector for settlement of the land passed order of eviction. The order of eviction is bad in law. 8. Per contra, Mr.Mishra, learned A.S.C. submits that both the courts below held that the plaintiff has not perfected title by way of adverse possession. There is no infirmity in the findings of the courts below. 9. In State of Orissa v. Bhanu Mali (Dead) Nurpa Bewa and others, (1996) 1 OrissaLR 460, a question arose that whether the decision of the Revenue Officer in the proceeding under the O.P.L.E. 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 O.P.L.E. 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. Notwithstanding the bar contained in Sec. 16 of the O.P.L.E. Act, the civil court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the complicated question of title. 10. Adverse possession is not a pure question of law, but a blended one of fact and law. 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. 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." 11. On the anvil of the decision cited supra, the instant appeal may be examined. 12. 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 plaintiff has perfected title by way of adverse possession. Both the courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he has perfected title by way of adverse possession. This is essentially a finding of fact. There is no perversity or infirmity in the findings of the courts below. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 13. A priori, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. Final Result : Dismissed