Jharkhand High Court
Anjo Devi vs Sudhir Ravidas on 22 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
[Civil Appellate Jurisdiction]
S.A. No.214 of 2015
.............
1.Anjo Devi
2.Paro Devi
3.Shakuntala Devi
4.Niranjan Ram
5.Shashi Ram
6.Rita Kumari
7.Geeta Kumari
8.Anita Kumari
9.Baijnath Ram
10.Lakhan Ram
11.Bijay Ram .... .. ... Appellant(s)
Versus
1.Sudhir Ravidas
2.State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra.
3.Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra.
4.Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra
5.Anchal Adhikari, Itkhori Anchal, Itkhori, Chatra.
6.Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh.
.. ... ... Respondent(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through :-Video Conferencing)
.........
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandip Verma, Advocate.
Mr. Kundan Kr. Ambastha, Advocate
For the Resp. No.1 : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Resp. Nos.2 to 6 : Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C. to AAG-II (Mr. Sachin Kr.)
..........
09 / 22.07.2021. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
The instant Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated
28.02.2015 and decree signed on 20.03.2015 passed by learned District Judge-I,
Chatra, in Title Appeal No.25/2008 whereby the judgment dated 16.09.2008 and
decree signed on 22.09.2008 passed by learned Munsif, Chatra in Title Suit No.02
of 2002 has been affirmed.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants/appellants has vehemently
argued the case and submitted that the plaintiffs have claimed the land on the basis
of their 'raiyati' right under Section 6 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908,
which may profitably be quoted hereunder :-
"6.Meaning of 'raiyat' :-(1) "Raiyat" means primarily a person who has
acquired a right to hold and for the purpose of cultivating it by himself or
by members of his family, or by hired servants or with the aid of partners;
and includes the successor-in-interest of persons who have acquired such a
right, but does not include a Mundari-khunt-Kattidar. "
Learned counsel for the appellants in support of his submission has further
relied upon provisions of Section 17 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908,
which may profitably be quoted hereunder :-.
"17.Definition of 'settled raiyat' :- (1) Every person who, for a period of twelve
years, whether wholly or partly before or after the commencement of this Act, has
continuously held as a 'raiyat' land situate in any village, whether under a lease
or otherwise, shall be deemed to have become on the expiration of that period a
settled 'raiyat' of that village.
(2) A person shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Section, to have
continuously held land in a village, notwithstanding that the particular land held
by him has been different at different times.
(3) A person shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Section, to have held as a
'raiyat' any land held as a 'raiyat' by a person whose heir he is.
(4) Land held by two or more co-sharers as a 'raiyati' holding shall be deemed,
for the purposes of this Section, to have been held as a 'raiyat' by each such co-
sharer.
(5) A person shall continue to be a settled 'raiyat' of village as long as he holds
any land as a 'raiyat' in that village and for three years thereafter.
(6) If a raiyat recovers possession of land under Section 71, or by suit, he shall
be deemed to have continued to be a settled 'raiyat' notwithstanding his having
been out of possession for more than three years.
(7) If, in any suit or proceeding, it is proved or admitted that a person holds any
land as a 'raiyat', it shall, as between him and the landlord under whom he holds
the land, be presumed, for the purpose of this Section, until the contrary is proved
or admitted, that he has twelve years continuously held that land or some part of
it as a 'raiyat'."
As such, learned counsel has submitted that after commencement of the
Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 on 11.11.1908, the plaintiffs or their members
remained on the land as 'raiyat' for 12 years.
Heard, learned counsel for the appellants and having gone through the
material available on record including the impugned judgment passed by both the
learned courts below, it appears from the records itself, that the Commissioner,
North Chhota Nagpur, Hazaribagh has upheld and affirmed the order passed by
the Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra in Settlement Case No.22 of 1994-95, with
respect to settlement of land of Khata No.10, Plot No.116 measuring an area of
0.71 acres in favour of the defendant, Sudhir Ravidas.
In view of such finding of the Commissioner, North Chhota Nagpur,
Hazaribagh, the plaintiffs moved before the court for declaration of right, title and
interest on the basis of a hukumnama, which has been held to be forged document
by both the learned courts below in terms of the judgment dated 16.09.2008 and
decree signed on 22.09.2008 passed by learned Munsif, Chatra in Title Suit
No.02 of 2002 affirmed by learned District Judge-I, Chatra, vide
judgment dated 28.02.2015 and decree dated 20.03.2015 in Title Appeal
No.25/2008 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment by the learned
lower court.
Since both the courts below have given a concurrent findings of fact, which
was sheet anchor for the plaintiffs/appellants/appellants for claiming the land, but
nothing has been pointed out by the appellants to suggest that there is substantial
question of law involved in the present Second Appeal filed under Section 100
CPC, as such, no interference is required by this Court.
Accordingly, the instant Second Appeal being devoid of merit is hereby
dismissed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Sandeep/
