Tenancy Act, the petitioner’s family acquired the right of occupancy which is also heritable in nature and during such possession, substantially developed it and at no point in time, the landlord ever disputed the right conferred vide Annexure-1. It is also contended that the possession of the petitioner’s father was recorded in the Land Register but in the final RoR, it was illegally recorded with the State Government as evident from Annexure-2, whereafter, the matter was challenged in Revision Case No. 224 of 1999 which is still subjudice and stands renumbered as Revision Case No. 64 of 2007. It is also submitted that in connection with the dispute since the possession of the petitioner was challenged, a suit in C.S. No. 153 of 2013 was instituted which is also pending disposal. Against the aforesaid backdrop, according to Mr. Tripathy, opposite party No.2 initiated action in view of encroachment proceeding in respect of the land in question notwithstanding the decision awaited in Revision Case No. 64 of 2007 and also the pendency of civil suit in C.S. No. 153 of 2013, hence, therefore, the action is arbitrary and illegal and thus, liable to be interfered with in the interest of justice.
