Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Her Heirs And Legal ... vs Government Of India (Union Of ... on 13 September, 2021
1
05 13.09.2021
SA 287 of 2010
SAT 3862 of 2001
I.A. No.: CAN 1 of 2006 (Old No.: CAN 3039 of 2006) (not found)
Smt. Charubala Jana (Deceased)
Her heirs and legal representatives Smt. Gouri Jana & ors
vs.
Government of India (Union of India) & anr.
Mr. Shyama Prasad Purkait
Ms. Moumita Mandal ... for appellants
Mr. Purkait, learned advocate appears on behalf
of substituted appellants and submits, original appellant
was plaintiff in the suit for declaration and injunction.
Her husband came to live in Diamond Harbour, in year
1937 and thereafter started his legal practice in the
criminal Court. They used to reside in suit land with
permission of Gopal, Gangadhar and Sailaja Nanda, heirs
of Shyamal Charan Nanda, who had taken the land by
Bandobast from the Railways. The C.S.R.O.R. carries
record of the Nandas, in respect of suit land. Some of the
Nandas sold their interest to husband of deceased original
appellant. Inter alia, on erroneous entry in R.S.R.O.R.,
recording Railways as in possession of suit land, the suit
was filed. Contention of original deceased appellant at
trial was adverse possession and title against all the
defendants, who severally claimed suit land.
We have perused the judgments. Both Courts
below did not find in favour of appellant but, for different
reasons. The trial Court found the Nandas had title to
possess suit land and husband of deceased original
appellant had entered into permissive occupation. This
permissive occupation could have converted itself to part
rightful and part adverse occupation from the dates of
conveyances, lastly on 26th February, 1966. However, this
too could not be held in favour of original deceased
appellant because she was claiming under the Nandas,
the latter's claim by Bandobast specifically denied by the
Railways. The learned trial Judge held that if the Nandas'
Bandobast or tenancy was good then original deceased
appellant was also a licensee under the Nandas. The
claim of adverse title thus rejected.
The lower appellate Court, as aforesaid, gave
different reasons being that the Nandas never got any
Bandobast from the Railways. If that is so, then the
Nandas and thereafter husband of original deceased
appellant, had all occupied suit land without authority.
Title by adverse possession of government land is
perfected on 30 years while against private persons, 12
years. There does not appear to be any dispute that
deceased original plaintiff or her husband came to occupy
suit land prior to or by year 1940.
The lower appellate Court said, inter alia, as
follows:
"It is claimed by the plaintiff that she
has acquired title by way of adverse
possession of the suit land. The possession
of the suit land by the Nandas or the
plaintiff, as the case may be, is unlawful
possession and an unlaw-ful possession
can never mature into title. The possession
in order to be matured into title must be
inter alia one as of right as distinguished
from unlawful possession."
We admit the appeal on following question to be
answered.
"Cannot unlawful possession mature
into title by continuous adverse possession
of prescribed period, against claim of
owner?"
Call for the records. Appellants will put in
requisites for preparing paper books and issuance of
notice of appeal.
Liberty to mention before the learned single
Judge having determination for hearing of the appeal,
when made ready.
(Arindam Sinha, J.)
(Sugato Majumdar, J.)
