Jharkhand High Court
Anirudh Singh vs State Of Jharkhand on 15 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)
S. A. No. 179 of 2015
......
Anirudh Singh ........... Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand, represented through
the Deputy Commissioner,
East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur ........ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
.......
For the Appellant : Mr. P. P. N. Roy, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. P. A. N. Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. P.C. Roy, S.C. (L&C)-I.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sahi, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-I
.......
15/15.07.2021
Heard, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Mr. P.P.N.
Roy assisted by learned counsel, Mr. P.A.N. Roy and learned
counsel for the State, Mr. P.C. Roy, S.C.(L&C)-I assisted by learned
counsel, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sahi, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-I.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that
plaintiff filed suit for declaration of his title and confirmation of
possession of the land, Plot No.626, Khata No.445/321 of Mouza
Kitadih, P.S.-Parsudih, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum vide
Title Suit No.61/2006. The suit was dismissed by the learned Sub-
ordinate Judge-VII, Jamshedpur in terms of judgment dated
23.08.2011 and decree was signed on 30.08.2011. The said judgment
and decree was assailed by the plaintiff / appellant before the learned
lower appellate court vide Title Appeal No.27/2011. The said appeal
was also dismissed vide judgment dated 16.12.2014 and decree
signed on 22.12.2014 passed by learned District Judge-VI, East
Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
appellant is residing over the said land since 1965 and as such, the
right accrued in favour of the appellant has not been considered by
both the courts below, as such, the appeal may be admitted.
It appears from the record that Issue No.IV i.e. "whether the
plaintiff is entitled for declaration of his title over the suit premises
and also for confirmation of the possession over the suit property"
has been framed by the learned Sub-Judge. The said issue has been
decided against the plaintiff in paragraph-14 of the impugned
judgment holding that plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his case
by way of adverse possession. Plaintiff could not show what was the
nature of his possession and also whether the factum of his
possession was known to the other parties.
The learned lower appellate court has also formulated the
same issue as Issue No. IV, which has been decided in paragraph-12
of the lower appellate court judgment, holding that since 1975 the
State is taking legal recourse for removal of plaintiff from suit land
and the plaintiff has already lost the case before the Circle Officer as
well as appellate authority. However, in a writ jurisdiction the
interim protection has been granted to appellant for removal against
the order of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, but that was not
on the basis of any title, on the ground of adverse possession.
However, the plaintiff has failed to establish that under what
capacity and authority, he is over the land. This Court under Section
100 of C.P.C. has to look whether any substantial question of law is
made out or not? Since the plaintiff has claimed, the land on the
basis of adverse possession, but the ingredient have not been proved
in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of
Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India, reported in (2004) 10
SCC 779 and also in the case of Tribhuvanshankar v. Amrutlal,
reported in (2014) 2 SCC 788.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, since appellant has not
made out a case to be admitted on any substantial question of law,
this Court is not inclined to admit this appeal, accordingly, second
appeal being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.
Let the LCR be sent to the court below.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sunil-Jay/-
