Jharkhand High Court
Divisional Forest Officer vs Hiraman Mahto on 11 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S. A. No. 384 of 2003
1. Divisional Forest Officer, Hazaribagh
2. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) through
Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh .... .... Appellants
Versus
Hiraman Mahto .... .... Respondent
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Appellants : Mr. P.C. Roy, SC (L&C)-1
Mr. N.K. Pandey, AC to SC (L&C)-1
For the Respondent : M/s Nanda Kumari & Tapas Roy, Advocate
C.A.V. ON 05.01.2022 PRONOUNCED ON 11 / 01 / 2022
This appeal has been preferred by the Divisional Forest Officer
against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Hazaribagh
in Title Appeal No. 10/96 affirming the judgment and decree passed by
the 1st Additional Munsif, Hazaribagh in Title Suit No. 42/90.
2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal is that one Sohan
Mahto claiming himself to be the occupancy raiyat of Village Silwar
Khurd, P.S. Mufassil in the district of Hazaribagh filed the instant suit for
declaration of title over the suit land fully detailed in Schedule A of the
Plaint comprising an area of 4.07 Acres, under Khata No.2, Plot No.591.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff/respondent that the plaintiff had
with due permission of the ex-landlady reclaimed the suit land and made it
cultivable by his own effort. The ex-landlady under Khewat No. 2 made
raiyati settlement in his name on receipt of salami of Rs 100/- on a rental
of Rs1/6 pies and granted a Hukumnama dated 12.8.1927. The Plaintiff
paid rent to the ex-land lady who granted rent receipt and the possession
of the Plaintiff became that of occupancy raiyat. That after vesting of
Zamindari the Plaintiff paid rent to the State, acknowledged by grant of
receipt. The plaintiff filed an application dated 29.8.1967 before the
Forest Settlement officer for the release of his land out of demarcation
which was registered as Case No.481 of 1967-68 which was allowed and
the land was released.
4. It is the case of the Defendant State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) is
that the suit has been filed on false and baseless ground to grab the suit
land. It has been denied that the Plaintiff was occupancy raiyat of village
Silwar Khurd. Averments regarding reclamation of land and subsequent
settlement by Hukumnama has been expressly denied. It is definite case of
the Defendant that land of Plot No. 591 was within forest area and the
land was in possession of the land lady through manager encumbered
estate and Plaintiff was never accorded permission to reclaim any portion
of Plot No. 591 nor he ever reclaimed the lands as falsely shown in
Schedule A of the Plaint. The Zamindari of Ramgarh Raj including
Rajmata Rikhnath Kueri were under the management of Encumbered
Estate during 1921 to 1936 and as such no settlement was made to
Plaintiff in 1927 and the alleged Hukumnama Purcha are all forged and
brought into existence for the purpose of this suit. The land is forest land
and is under possession of the Defendants since the time the State of Bihar
took over the land in 1946 under Bihar Private Forest Protected Act. The
order of release of the land by forest settlement officer is without any
supporting document. The Government already finished all claims under
Sections 29 and 30 of the Indian Forest Act 1927, by 1961-62 and
thereafter the forest settlement officer had no jurisdiction of the land, as
such the claim of release on 4.6.1969 is totally false.
5. On the basis of the pleading of the parties the main issue that
was framed was :
VI. Has the Plaintiff got title over the suit property and is he entitled
to the relief claimed?
6. It is surprising that when specific averment was made on behalf
of the Defendant that the Hukumnama which was the foundational
document of title of the plaintiff was forged and fabricated because at that
time the tenure holder who purportedly settled the land was under
encumbrance and the Estate was under management of Encumbrancer,
therefore there was no question of the settlement being made by the
erstwhile landlady. Since no issue was framed therefore no evidence was
led on this material issue. It has been held in Kalyan Singh Chouhan v.
C.P. Joshi, (2011) 11 SCC 786 "Pleadings and particulars are required to
enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Thus, the
pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy
involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question in issue, so
that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is
settled legal proposition that "as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings
should not be granted". Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on
grounds outside the pleadings of the parties. The pleadings and issues are
to ascertain the real dispute between the parties to narrow the area of
conflict and to see just where the two sides differ."
It is cardinal rule that issues arise where a material proposition
of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other.The trial
Court committed a manifest error in framing of issue in a lackadaisical
manner without considering the rival contention raised on by both the
sides. Framing of issues are fundamental in the adjudicatory procedure of
civil suit as it sets the direction of the trial.
Under the circumstance the case is remanded back to the Court below
for adjudication on following issues:
I. Whether the ex-landlady under Khewat No. 2 made raiyati
settlement in the name of Plaintiff Sohan Mahto on receipt of
salami of Rs 100 on a rental of Rs1/6 pies and granted a
Hukumnama dated 12.8.1927 or it was a forged and fabricated
document?
II. Whether the Government had already finished all claims under
Section 29 and 30 of the Indian Forest Act 1927, by 1961-62
and thereafter the forest settlement officer had no jurisdiction to
release the land , on 4.6.1969 in case no.481 of 1967-68?
Accordingly, the lower court record is remitted
back to the trial Court to adjudicate upon these two issues within three
months of the receipt of the order, by giving further opportunity to both
sides to adduce evidence on these issues. The parties shall appear before
the trial Court within two weeks of the order and in the event of their non-
appearance, the learned Court below shall issue notice to the parties and
proceed as per law. After recording a finding of fact on these issues the
record to be remitted back to this Court.
Registry is directed to remit the lower court record to the
learned Court below by special Manager.
List the case after three months.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 11th January, 2022
NAFR / AKT
