Jaleshwar Mahto vs M/S. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 1813 Jhar

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                               S.A No. 568 of 2016
                                            ------

       Jaleshwar Mahto                                      .... .... Appellant(s).
                                   Versus
        1. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.
        2. Shankar Mahto                              .... .... Respondent(s)
                                   ------
       CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
                                   ------

For the Appellant(S) : Mr. Rajiv N Prasad Advocate For the Respondent :

7/05.05.2022 Heard the counsel for the appellant.

Appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 22.5.2014 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division VII, Dhanbad in T.S. No. 11 of 2006 and also the judgment dated 18.6.2016 in Title Appeal No. 49 of 2014 which affirmed judgment passed in T.S. No. 11 of 2006.

Counsel for the appellant submits that both the courts below failed to take into consideration that land which is in possession of the plaintiffs were not at all acquired by the respondent. He submits that the appellant is still in possession and he is paying rent of the land in question which will suggest that the title has not passed in favour of the respondents. He submits that Appellate Court should have dealt with all the issues independently and by not doing so, have violated the provision of Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC.

After hearing the appellant-plaintiffs, I find that they have filed the suit for declaring their right, title and interest over Schedule-A property claiming themselves to be the absolute owner of the land in question. It is their case that land was never acquired by Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and they are still in possession but the Officers and other employees of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. threatened the plaintiffs and there is eminent threat of dispossession which gave rise a cause of action to the plaintiffs to file the suit. From the impugned judgment, I find that defendant appeared and has taken a plea that land in question was acquired in Land Acquisition Case and thereafter possession was handed over to the defendant upon which Miner's Township was established. It has also been mentioned that the land was acquired in L.A. Case No.6/48-49. It is also the case that grand-father of the plaintiffs had received the compensation amount. The Trial court has framed six issues out of which issue no.4 reads as follows:-

"4. Has the suit land acquired by the LA Competent Authority?"

Thereafter the trial court and appellate court considering exhibits and the material available on record arrived at a finding that the suit land was acquired in L.A No. 6/48-49 and award was prepared vide award No.42 & 5. The courts also gave a concurrent finding that compensation was received by a land owner Jainath Mahato who is none other than grand-father of the plaintiffs.

The aforesaid are totally question of fact. The question as to whether the land was acquired or not and whether the compensation was paid or not, is a pure question of fact. Both the courts concluded that the land was acquired and compensation was paid to the grand-father of the appellant. Thus, I find no substantial question of law is involved in this case.

Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed.

(ANANDA SEN , J) anjali/cp2