Jharkhand High Court
Bharat Coking Coal Limited And Another vs Ramakant Roy And Others on 27 February, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Second Appeal No. 382 of 2018
Bharat Coking Coal Limited and another
... ... Appellants
Versus
Ramakant Roy and others ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellants : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate
: Mr. Shivam Utkarsh Sahay, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Mukul Kr. Singh, AC to GP-III
For Private Respondents : Mr. R. N. Sahay, Senior Advocate
: Mr. Kirtivardhan, Advocate
: Mr. Rishi Ranjan, Advocate
: Mr. Ritesh Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Aditya Aman, Advocate
: Ms. Pratayaksha Bhaskar, Advocate
---
14/27.02.2025 Learned counsel for the parties are present.
2. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants was
recorded in the order dated 06.02.2025.
3. Today, the learned Senior counsel for the respondents has
advanced his arguments.
4. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that the learned
appellate Court has taken note of various judgments while recording
that running Jamabandi cannot be cancelled and that the defendants
had not produced any document to show that the plaintiffs were given
notice prior to cancellation of their running Jamabandi. He has also
submitted that the creation of Jamabandi gives a valuable right to the
raiyats.
5. The learned Senior counsel for the respondents has further
submitted that the possession of the plaintiffs has also been considered
by the learned appellate Court by referring to the various oral and
documentary evidences and the learned appellate Court found that the
plaintiffs have right, title, interest and possession over the property.
He has also submitted that Jamabandi was also created in favour of
the plaintiffs after purchase of property in the year 1982 vide Mutation
Case No. 91(X) of 82-83 which is exhibit 10 of the present case. He
has submitted that the plaintiffs had purchased the property which was
initially settled in the name of Devrani Devi by way of Sada
Hukumnama by the ex-landlord way back in the year 1942 and there
is enough material to show that the Sada Hukumnama was followed
by possession and numerous rent receipts which were produced by the
plaintiffs before the learned Court for consideration.
6. The learned Senior counsel has relied upon the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Patna High Court reported in AIR 1968 Patna 302
(FB) (Mt. Ugni and Another Vs. Chowa Mahto and others)
(paragraphs 16 and 17). He has also relied upon the judgment passed
in LPA No. 413 of 2024 (Ganesh Burman @ Ganesh Poddar Vs. The
State of Jharkhand and others) decided on 28.01.2025 (paragraphs
23, 24 and 28).
7. Learned Senior counsel for the respondents has further referred
to the exhibit- 11/a which is certified copy of the order dated
29.01.2009 passed in Case No. 5125 of 2005 under section 87 of
Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 to submit that the record-of-rights
was corrected by virtue of this order and the wrongful entry of the
record-of-rights was corrected in favour of the plaintiffs.
8. The learned Senior counsel submits that both the substantial
questions of law are fit to be answered in favour of the respondents
and against the appellants and this second appeal is fit to be dismissed.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants, in response, has relied
upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
(2014) 2 SCC 269 (Union of India and others Vs. Vasavi
Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others) (paragraphs 15
and 19) to submit that the onus is always upon the plaintiffs to prove
their case. Any lacunae in the defendants' case will not give any
advantage to the plaintiffs.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted
that it was for the plaintiffs to prove that the vendor of the plaintiffs
had title to transfer the property in the name of the plaintiffs.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon the
judgment passed by this Court reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Jhar.
1003 (M/s. India Estates Developments Limited, Ranchi Vs. The
State of Jharkhand and others) (paragraph 9) to submit that the
requirement of claiming property through Sada Hukumnama and the
provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act have been duly considered.
Filing of return is one of the essential steps in the matter of claiming
settlement and continuation of settlement under the Bihar Land
Reforms Act. He submits that not even a single rent receipt has been
produced by the plaintiffs which was relating to the period prior to
vesting and even after vesting, the oldest rent receipt is sometimes of
the year 1972. He has submitted that the rent receipts which have been
produced by the plaintiffs are of no consequence.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants has also relied upon the
judgment passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 29 of 2009
(Mahendra Ram and others Vs. C.M.D. Tata Steel Ltd., Jamshedpur
and Another) decided on 01st July 2020 (paragraph 21) to submit
that mere Hukumnama is of no consequence.
13. The learned counsel for the appellants has thereafter referred to
the judgment passed by the learned trial Court to submit that the
learned trial court after considering the materials on record, has given
a finding that the disputed land was government land and the
Government of Bihar had title and possession over the said land and
the government, after inviting objection from the general public,
transferred the same to the defendant nos. 4 and 5. He asserted that the
defendant nos. 4 and 5 are in possession of the property by virtue of
the transfer made by the then Government of Bihar.
14. The learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that
the order dated 29.01.2009 (exhibit 11/a) was passed in Case No. 5125
of 2005 during the pendency of the trial and the suit is of the year
1990 and accordingly, the exhibit- 11/a has no relevance and there is
no corresponding pleading to that effect.
15. Arguments concluded.
16. Judgment is reserved.
Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
