Compoter Yadav vs The State Of Bihar
2025 Latest Caselaw 1338 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Compoter Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 2 January, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                             Second Appeal No. 58 of 2020

            1. Compoter Yadav, aged about 58 years, son of Late Paltan Yadav
               @ Gholtan Yadav
            2. Devendra Kumar Gupta, aged about 54 years, son of late Ishwar
               Dayal Sah
            3. Bibhishan Yadav, aged about 57 years, son of Shiv Narayan
            4. Vikram Kumar Gupta @ Sah, aged about 22 years, son of
               Dinanath Ram @ Sah
            5. Shiv Narayan Yadav, aged about 80 years, son of Late Jangil
               Yadav
               All are resident of village and P.O. Kouril Bahiyar, P.S. Godda
               (T), District-Godda            ... ...          Plaintiffs/Appellants
                                       Versus
            1. The State of Bihar, through the Circle Officer, Ashol Kumar Jha of
               Godda Anchal, P.O. + P .S. and District-Godda
            2. The State of Bihar, through D.C,L.R. of Godda Sub-Division,
               P.O.+ P.S. and District-Godda
            3. The State of Bihar, through Sub-Divisional Officer, Godda, P.O.
               +P.S. and District-Godda
            4. A.S.O. Godda Tasdik Siwir at Dumka Headquarter, P.O. + P.S.-
               Godda, Sub-Division and District Godda
                  ...      ...     ...       Defendants 1st Party/Respondents 1st Party
            5. Raj Narayan Jha, son of late Ram Narayan Jha
            6. Gauri Shankar Jha, son of Pashupati Jha
            7. Amrendra Jha, son of Late Amole Jha
            8. Sita Ram Jha, son of Late Triveni Jha
               All (Nos. 5 to 8) are resident of village+ P.O. Dumaria, P.S. Godda
               (M), District-Godda
                         ...     Defendants 2nd Party/Respondents 2nd Party
                                       ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Appellants : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh, Advocate

---

07/02.01.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that though there are concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts while dismissing the suit but the learned Courts have failed to consider that the plaintiffs came in possession of the property by virtue of allotment made by the government which the government acquired by virtue of the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. He submits that the appellants remained in possession of the property but the acquisition of land by the government was held to be illegal. The learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the learned Courts have failed to consider the long possession of the appellants over the suit property and that the allocation of land to the appellants by the government was itself in accordance with law and parcha was also granted in favour of these appellants and the right stood crystalized in favour of the appellants.

3. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, this court finds that the Title Suit No. 27 of 2000 was filed by altogether five plaintiffs seeking a declaration of adverse peaceful possession of 14 years on the suit land and confirmation of their right, title, interest for suit property in schedule-A claimed to have been perfected through adverse possession and delivery of possession to each plaintiffs be carried out separately by Amin according to their peaceful possession. He submits that substantial question of law be framed on the basis of the aforesaid arguments and the second appeal be admitted for final hearing.

4. The specific case of the plaintiffs was that the property involved in this case was allotted to them to the extent of 5 acres each by the State of Bihar on 30.03.1984 by the defendant no. 1,2,3 and the State obtained the land under Section 27 of the aforesaid Act being the surplus land of recorded tenant and the plaintiffs were in peaceful possession and cultivating of the land till the date of settlement. It was their further case that the measurement was also done, measurement receipts were issued in their name and their adverse possession was admitted by the State. The defendant no. 5 to 9 were made defendants second party and as per the plaintiffs defendant no. 5 to 9 have lost right, title, interest and possession over the disputed land as it was already taken over by the State Government. The cause of action arose on 18.11.1997 when all proforma defendants raised objection not to cultivate the disputed land.

5. The defendant no. 1 to 3 appeared and took a specific stand that the settlement patta was granted on 30.03.1984 in favour of the

plaintiffs which was challenged in writ petition being CWJC No. 1753 of 1984. The writ petition was initially dismissed for default and ultimately restored and finally disposed of and the order dated 18.02.1981 and the acquisition of suit land by the government was cancelled by the learned Sub Divisional Officer, Godda vide letter dated 19.06.1997. The defendant filed their written statement and pleaded that no legal right vested in favour of the plaintiffs and the suit was not maintainable in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court dated 08.10.1996 passed in CWJC No. 1753 of 1984. The defendant no. 5 to 9 also contested the suit and, interalia, relied upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court dated 08.10.1996 passed in CWJC No. 1753 of 1984. The learned Trial Court framed as many as eight issues which are as follows: -

1. Is the suit as framed maintainable?

2. Have the plaintiffs got any cause of action?

3. Has the Hon'ble Court dismissed the petition of the plaintiffs?

4. Has the Deputy Commissioner, Godda dismissed the claim of the plaintiffs in the light of observation made by Hon'ble High Court?

5. Has the Circle Officer, Godda issued notices to the plaintiffs to return the parcha granted earlier?

6. Have the plaintiffs any right to file the present suit when the matter has already been decided against them earlier?

7. Are the plaintiffs entitled to any relief?

8. Whether the plantiffs have perfected right title interest by way of adverse possession on schedule A property of plaint?

6. The Trial Court decided the issue no. 3,4,5 and 8 together in paragraph 7 and, interalia, held as follows: -

"7. .................. Petitioner claiming that on 30.3.84 parcha was issued to them and there was possession, Hon'ble Court held that land have not been validly declared surplus, there is no question of title is being vested in state which would be transferred to anyone else. Other petitioners have no right to claim before this court and court has not expressed any

opinion on the question as to whether the petitioners are actually in possession and writ petition dismissed. Multifarious criminal cases, Revenue cases contested between the parties and pending regarding suit land. After cursory look of oral and documentary evidences exhibited documents from both the sides and above discussion, I hold that plaintiffs are not in peaceful continuous uninterrupted possession or perfected right, title interest over the suit land property schedule 'A' by way of adverse possession. D.C. Godda dismissed the claim of plaintiffs in the light of the final order of Hon'ble High Court of patna, Hon'ble High Court of Patna also dismissed the claim of plaintiffs (settles) and C.O. Godda issued notice to plaintiffs to return the cancelled parchas and published general official notice. Accordingly issue no.3,4,5,8 decided negatively against the plaintiffs."

7. The other issues, that is, issue nos. 1,2,6 and 7 were also decided against the appellant and ultimately the suit was dismissed.

" Issue no. 1,2,6 and 7:-

"As I hold in the discussion of earlier issues that plaintiffs have not perfected right title interest by way of adverse possession on suit land schedule 'A' and D.C. Godda dismissed the claim of suit land in the light of final order of Hon'ble High Court Patna and C.O. Godda issued general official notice regarding cancellation of distributed parchas and defendants 5 to 9 are in possession, right, title interest of suit property, so no valid cause of action to sue the case accrued in favour of plaintiffs, suit as framed is not maintainable as various necessary parties mentioned in para-7 in W.S. not made party. D.C. Godda who represent state not made party in suit. Other co-settles in respect of their claims preferred C.W.J.C. no. 12637/96 which was dismissed on 31.03.97 by Hon'ble High Court of Patna."

8. So far as the first Appellate Court is concerned, the Appellate Court considered all the issues framed by the learned Trial Court and recorded concurrent findings and was of the view that the learned

Trial Court rightly held that the plaintiffs were not in peaceful, continuous, uninterrupted possession of the suit property and that they have not perfected right, title, interest over the suit land by way of adverse possession.

9. This court finds that both the courts have given concurrent findings that the appellants did not perfect their title through adverse possession and by considering the materials on record and held that the plaintiffs were not in peaceful, continuous, uninterrupted possession of the suit property. The learned counsel for the appellants neither could point out any perversity in the impugned judgments nor could point out any question of law much less substantial question of law involved in this case. This court also finds that there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal.

10. Accordingly, this second appeal is hereby dismissed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Binit