Jharkhand High Court
Bhuglu Soren vs The State Of Jharkhand Represented By ... on 29 January, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 127 of 2022
----------
1. Bhuglu Soren, s/o of late Badal Soren
2. Hira Soren, w/o late Badal Soren
Both R/o. Road No. E, Ward No. 1, Adityapur Basti, P.O. + P.S. Adtiyapur, Dist.
Saraikella-Kharsawan, Jharkhand
............ Appellants/ Appellants/ Plaintiffs
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella,
having office at Gourangdih, P.O. + P.S. Seraikella, Dist. Seraikella-Kharswan,
Jharkhand.
2. The Executive Officer, Adityapur NAC, P.O. + P.S. Adityapur, Dist. Seraikella-
Kharswan, Jharkhand.
3. The Circle Officer, Gamharia Circle, P.O. + P.S. Gamharia, Dist. Seraikella-
Kharsawan, Jharkhand.
............ Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
For the Appellants : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Dina Kant Roy, AC to SC(M)-I
----------
13/ 29.01.2025 Heard counsel appearing for the appellants.
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 27.06.2022 and
decree signed on 11.07.2022, by learned District Judge-II, Seraikella-Kharswan
in Title Appeal No. 17 of 2008 whereby the appeal has been dismissed. The
judgment of the Trial Court was passed by learned Munsif, Seraikella-
Kharsawan at Seraikella in Title Suit No. 43/1999 / Title Suit No. 26/2007 vide
judgment dated 30.09.2008 and decree signed on 10.11.2008.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that although there are
concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts but substantial questions of
law arise for consideration in this case.
4. He has submitted that the appellant was claiming title on the basis of an
unregistered Patta executed by the then zamindar of Seraikella on 30.04.1945.
Pursuant to the Patta the original plaintiffs started paying rent to zamindar and
after abolition of zamindari, he continued to be in possession of the property.
The learned counsel has submitted that in the remarks column of the Khatiyan,
the plaintiff was shown to be in possession of the property and there was
certain erroneous entry which continued till 1989 but as soon as he came to
learnt about it he filed a case under Section 90 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy
Act before the Charge Officer, Singhbhum Settlement at Jamshedpur which
was registered as Case No. 7/89-90 and vide order dated 02.05.1996, the
plaintiff was found in possession of the suit land since 1945 and the class of
land was also corrected as Makan Sahan and Bari land instead of Purani Parti
which was earlier recorded.
5. He submits that the said order became final.
6. The learned counsel has submitted that the plaintiff perfected his right,
title and interest over the suit land which he acquired in the year 1945 from the
Ruler of the Saraikella Estate and continued his uninterrupted peaceful
possession since then.
7. He has also submitted that the defendant No. 1, who has no right, title
and interest over the suit property allowed the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to act
arbitrarily without taking recourse to law to dispossess the plaintiff from the
suit land which casted a doubt with regard to right, title and interest of the
plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration of his
right, title and interest and recovery of khas possession of the suit land when
the cause of action arose on 06.04.1999 and the defendants illegally undertook
construction over the suit land.
8. The learned counsel has submitted that though it was never the case of
the defendants that the Executor of the Hukumnama was not the then zamindar,
still the Appellate Court while upholding the judgment of learned Trial Court
recorded that the case of the plaintiff is based on alleged Hukumnama and as
per English translation the Hukumnama was executed by Sur Sattpati and not
by the Ruler who has no title over the property and on this basis the Appellate
Court held that the Hukumnama -Patta (Ext. 3) was not executed by the
Competent Authority.
9. The learned counsel submits that such finding is beyond the pleadings
of the respective parties and therefore, the Appellate Court has misdirected
itself by giving the said findings on the basis of which judgment of the Trial
Court has been upheld.
10. Learned counsel for the State is present.
11. Since arguments of the appellants is concluded, post this case "For
Orders" on 05.02.2025.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Kunal
