Jharkhand High Court
Abdul Quayum Ansari vs State Of Jharkhand Through Deputy ... on 10 May, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Second Appeal No.363 of 2017
------
1. Abdul Quayum Ansari
2. Jakir Hussain .... .... .... Appellants
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa
2. D.F.O. (North Division), Garhwa
3. Jasimuddin Ansari .... .... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellants : Mr. Syed T. Sajid, Advocate
Mr. Saibal Mitra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Praveen Akhouri, SC (Mines)-1
Mr. Diva Kant Rai, AC to SC (Mines)-1
------
Order No.10 / Dated : 10.05.2024
1. Appellants are the plaintiffs and the second appeal is preferred against the judgment
and decree passed by both the learned Courts below, whereby and whereunder the suit
for declaration of title has been dismissed by a concurrent finding of fact.
2. The plaintiffs' case is based on unregistered settlement parwana purported to be made
in favour of the plaintiff's father. Plaintiff claims to be in possession of the land 20.25
acre.
3. The case of the defendant-Forest Department is that the settlement was never settled
to anybody and the suit parwana is a self-manufacture document having no legal
document and is not corroborated by collateral evidence of revenue records.
4. The Plaintiffs several times tried to encroach the suit land with the help of anti-social
element, so several criminal proceedings were instituted. The nature of suit was Gair-
majarua and rest land which got vested in the nature of suit of Government of Bihar by
notification No. 743R dated 20.03.1967 declared the plot No. 2263 as protected forest
and only to grab the forest land, the present suit is filed.
5. Learned trial Court on the basis of the pleading of the parties framed the following
main issues.
(i) Is the suit barred by law of adverse possession?
(ii) Whether the plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit land?
6. Learned trial Court after discussing the evidence at length dismissed the suit including
the plot of adverse possession. Learned First Appellate Court has concurred with the
finding of the trial Court.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that the issue of adverse
possession had not been rightly decided by both the learned Courts below.
8. Having considered submission, advanced on behalf of the appellant, I do not find any
infirmity in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the learned Courts below.
9. The claim of title is being raised on an unregistered settlement document without any
collateral evidence. There is no evidence that after vesting the appellant was accepted as
raiyat by the State and rents were fixed, rent receipts were issued. Without any document
of title or possession, a claim over forest land has been made by the plaintiff and despite
the dismissal by both the courts below, the unmerited second appeal has been filed.
Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed with cost and the cost assessed to Rs.
10,000/- (Ten thousand only) which will be paid to the Respondents/Defendants.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Pawan
