JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J - Plaintiffs are the appellants against a confirming judgment in a suit for declaration of title, confirmation of possession and permanent injunction. 2. The case of the plaintiffs was that lease was granted in favour of Chakradhar Dalei, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, in respect of Ac.0.20 dec. of land appertaining to hal plot nos.1277 and 1278 appertaining to khata no.304 of mouza-Nayagah in the year 1954. He was in possession of the same. The suit land appertaining to hal plot no.1278/2793, khata no.1259 is a government land. The same is adjacent to the lease hold land. Chakradhar was in possession of the land along with the suit land. Though the record of right was prepared in favour of the State in the 1983-84 settlement, but possession of the suit land was recorded in favour of Chakradhar. After his death, the same was in possession of the plaintiffs. Thus they had acquired title by way of adverse possession. In the year 1994, the defendant prevented the plaintiffs from constructing a house over the suit land. With this factual scenario, they instituted the suit seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 3. The defendant filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendant was that the suit plot adjoins to the office of the Collector, Nayagarh. In the said campus, offices of the Sub-Collector, Tahasildar, District Treasury, District Registrar Office and office of the R.T.O. are functioning. On its western side, the N.A.C. tank is situated from where the Public Health Department, Nayagarh used to supply water to the N.A.C. area. The excess water passes through the suit land from the Sagar Tank, Nayagarh. Neither the plaintiffs, nor their father was in possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs gained over the settlement authorities and managed to record the land illegally in the remarks column of the ROR. 4. On the interse pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck six issues. Parties led evidence. Learned trial court dismissed the suit holding that neither the plaintiffs nor their father was ever in possession of the suit land. Dissatisfied the plaintiffs filed R.F.A. No.13 of 2003 before the learned Additional District Judge, Nayagarh, which was eventually dismissed. 5. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law. Parties led evidence. Learned trial court dismissed the suit holding that neither the plaintiffs nor their father was ever in possession of the suit land. Dissatisfied the plaintiffs filed R.F.A. No.13 of 2003 before the learned Additional District Judge, Nayagarh, which was eventually dismissed. 5. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law. "Whether institution of eviction proceeding and payment of penalty in such proceeding would amount to disruption of possession and whether that would stand as a bar to the claim of adverse possession ?" 6. Heard Miss Sagarika Sahoo, learned Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Gautam Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Ram Prasad Mohapatra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondent. 7. Miss Sahoo, learned Advocate for the appellants, submits that notwithstanding the bar contained in Sec.16 of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act ("OPLE Act"), the civil court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the complicated question of title. She further submits that Chakradhar Dalei, the predecessor-ininterest of the plaintiffs, was in possession of the suit land peacefully, continuously and with the hostile animus to the State for more than the statutory period and as such perfected title by way of adverse possession. Elaborating the submission, she submits that the Government had settled the land in favour of Chakradhar in L.W. Case Nos.410 and 628 of 1954-55. The suit land was adjacent to the lease hold land. Plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land since the time of their ancestors. The initiation of encroachment case against the plaintiffs is bad in law. 8. Per contra, Mr. Mohapatra, learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondent, submits that adverse possession is a mixed question of fact and law. Both the courts held that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land. 9. In State of Orissa vs. Bhanu Mali (Dead) Nurpa Bewa and others, (1996) AIR Orissa 199, a question arose that whether the decision of the Revenue Officer in the proceeding under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act will operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and recovery of possession. 9. In State of Orissa vs. Bhanu Mali (Dead) Nurpa Bewa and others, (1996) AIR Orissa 199, a question arose that whether the decision of the Revenue Officer in the proceeding under the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment 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 Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment 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 OPLE Act, the civil court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the complicated question of title. 10. 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. Mere possession of the suit land for long time is not suffice to hold that the plaintiffs have perfected title by way of adverse possession, unless the classical requirements of adverse possession nec vi, nec clam, nec precario are pleaded and proved. 11. In Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Govt. of India and others, (2004) 10 SCC 779 , the apex Court held: "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 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." 12. The date of entry into the suit land has not been mentioned. Both the courts concurrently held that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit land. Learned lower appellate court held that in encroachment case, plaintiffs had paid penalty. Thus, the element of hostile animus is absent. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 13. In the wake of aforesaid, the appeal, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Final Result : Dismissed