Jharkhand High Court
Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs Ramakant Roy on 27 May, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2025: JHHC: 14230
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Second Appeal No. 382 of 2018
1. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, through the Dy. C.M.E. (Estate),
having the Head Office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.- Koyla
Nagar, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand) through its Chairman-cum-
Managing Director and also through Basant Kumar Singh, aged
about 47 years, son of Late K.N.P. Sinha, residing at D-5, Harina
Colony, PO-Nawagarh Dhanbad, PS-Barora, District-Dhanbad,
PO-Nawagarh Dhanbad, PS-Barora, District-Dhanbad, PIN
828306 (Jharkhand)
2. General Manager, Block II Area, BCCL, PO and PS-Nawagarh,
District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
... ... ... Defendants/Respondents/Appellants
Versus
1. Ramakant Roy, aged about 61 years
2. Sheo Kumar Roy, age about 65 years
Both sons of Sri Radha Kant Roy and residents of Village-
Bhimkanali, P.O. and P.S. Baghmara, District-Dhanbad
... ... Plaintiffs/Appellants/Respondents
3. State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad,
P.O.+ P.S. and District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
4. The Additional Collector, P.O.+ P.S. & District-Dhanbad
(Jharkhand)
5. The Circle Officer, Baghmara, P.O. Baghmara, P.S. Baghmara,
Dist. Dhanbad
... ... Defendant/Respondents/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, A.C. to G.P. III
For the Private Resp. : Mr. R.N. Sahay, Senior Advocate
: Mr. Kirtivardhan, Advocate
: Mr. Rishi Ranjan, Advocate
: Mr. Ritesh Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Aditya Aman, Advocate
: Ms. Pratyaksha Bhaskar, Advocate
---
C.A.V. On 27/02/2025 Pronounced On 27/05/2025
This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 4th June,
2018 (decree signed on 08.06.2018) passed by the learned District
Judge-XIV, Dhanbad in Civil Appeal No. 119 of 2015, whereby the
learned 1st appellate has allowed the appeal against the judgment dated
17.10.2015 (decree signed on 24.11.2015) passed by the learned Civil
2025: JHHC: 14230
Judge (Senior Division)-VII, Dhanbad in Title Suit No. 73 of 1990.
The suit was dismissed by the learned trial court.
2. The defendants are the appellants before this Court.
3. This appeal was admitted for final hearing on 09.02.2023 on the
following substantial questions of law: -
(i) Whether the learned first appellate court has
committed perversity by ignoring the fact that the
vendors of the plaintiff having no title as she has no
document except a sada hukumnama which is not
admissible in evidence, the sale deed executed by her in
favour of the plaintiffs, could not have conferred any title
upon the plaintiffs?
(ii) Whether the learned first appellate court committed
gross illegality in holding that the plaintiffs have proved
their right, title, interest and possession over the suit
land, by ignoring the fact that the Deputy Commissioner,
Dhanbad in Case No.11 of 82 vide order dated 31.12.83
has annulled the thoka containing the suit land and the
land has been acquired by the State Government and
given to the defendant nos.4 and 5-appellant vide Case
No. 11 (2)/83-84 and delivery of possession of the suit
land has been given by the government of Bihar to BCCL
vide Ext. B on 26.11.87?"
4. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for the following reliefs: -
"(a) For a decree declaring plaintiffs' title to the land
fully mentioned in Schedule 'A' of the plaint and
confirmation of their possession.
(b) For a decree for permanent injunction restraining the
defendants No. 1 to 3 and their men, agents,
representatives and servants from cancelling the
mutation of plaintiffs' name drawn up in jamabandi Nos.
150 and 151 regarding Schedule 'A' land of plaint and
from handing over possession thereof to Bharat Coking
Coal Ltd.
(c) For a decree for costs of the suit.
(d) For any other or further relief or reliefs to which the
plaintiffs may be found entitled to."
5. The case of the plaintiffs
(a) The specific case of plaintiffs is that the lands under
Khata No. 45, Mouza Bhimkanali, Mouza No. 76, P.S.
Baghmara, District Dhanbad stood recorded as "Gair Abad
2025: JHHC: 14230
Malik" in the last survey record of rights and the Khata no. 45
consists of several plots. One Smt. Devrani Devi wife of Sri
Bhubaneshwar Singh Choudhary took settlement of 3 Acres of
land out of total area of 3.70 acres in plot No. 125 under Khata
No. 45 vide Hukumnama dated 8 Ashwin 1353 B.S. granted by
the landlord and was put in possession and her name was
mutated in the sherista of the State of Bihar and she was
acknowledged as Raiyat and Thoka/ Jamabandi No. 79 was
drawn up in the name of Smt. Devrani Devi and rent was
realized from her by the Anchal Office, Baghmara since vesting
of the estate of the intermediaries in the State of Bihar and up-
to-date rent receipts were issued in her name.
(b) While in peaceful and undisturbed possession over the
said lands, said Smt. Devrani Devi sold and transferred the said
3.00 acres of land to the plaintiffs (1½ acres to each plaintiff)
vide registered sale deed Nos. 12734 and 12735 dated
24.11.1982 for valuable consideration and the plaintiffs were
put in possession. The names of the plaintiffs have been duly
mutated in the sherista of the State of Bihar vide Mutation Case
No. 80(x)82-83 and 91(x)82-83 respectively of Baghmara
Anchal and updated rents have been realized from the plaintiffs
vide Jamabandi No. 150 and 151 of the village. Thus, the
plaintiffs have been recognized as Raiyats for the said land by
the State of Bihar through Bahgmara Anchal Office and
updated rents receipts were issued to the plaintiffs.
(c) Further case of the plaintiffs is that on the basis of notice
dated 03.06.1983 issued by the office of Anchal Adhikari,
Baghmara, the plaintiffs went to the Anchal Office on 09.06.83
and showed the papers regarding their title with respect to the
land fully mentioned in Schedule-A of the plaint. Then Anchal
Adhikari directed the plaintiffs to show the papers of Schedule-
A land to the Additional Collector, Dhanbad. As per direction,
the plaintiffs showed the papers to the Additional Collector,
Dhanbad Camp at Baghmara Anchal Office. On 10.07.86, the
2025: JHHC: 14230
Anchal Adhikari told that mutation entries in the name of the
plaintiffs were going to be cancelled and the land in question
were going to be handed over to Bharat Coking Coal Limited
(defendant No-4 & 5) and thus the plaintiffs came to know that
Jamabandi drawn up in their name with respect to schedule-A
land is going to be cancelled by the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 on
frivolous plea that the said lands were vested in the State of
Bihar and possession of the suit land was going to be handed
over to the Bharat Coking Coal Ltd (defendant No-4 & 5). The
plaintiffs produced all documents before the defendants Nos- 1
to 3 but to no avail.
(d) Thereafter, the plaintiffs sent a notice Under Section 80
of CPC dated 11.08.86 issued and served upon the defendants
but the defendants neither reply to the said notice nor had
informed anything to the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs
came to know that matter was still pending at Additional
Collector level as informed from Officials of Baghmara Anchal.
(e) It is the case of plaintiffs that before vesting of zamindari
in the State of Bihar, the then landlords including the ex-land
lord of Mouza Bhimkanali had full and absolute right to make
raiyati settlement of Gair Abad lands and once such settlement
was made, under law the survey recorded nature of land
changed from Gair Abad to raiyati which the vendors of the
plaintiffs acquired from the ex-landlords after vesting of the
jamindari and the aforesaid raiyati land did not vest in the
Govt./State of Bihar under the provisions of Bihar Land
Reforms Act.
(f) Further case of the plaintiffs is that the aforesaid actions
of the defendants No. 1 to 3 in suo-moto attempting to cancel
the jamabandi drawn up in the names of plaintiffs is unjustified,
malafide and motivated and if transformed into action it will
put the plaintiffs to irreparable loss. The cause of action for the
present suit arose on 10.07.86, 11.08.86, 21.02.90 and
2025: JHHC: 14230
subsequently thereafter and it is still continuing from day to
day.
6. Case of the defendants
(i) The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 appeared and filed their
written statement.
(ii) As per written statement, the case of the defendants is
that the land in question is recorded as Gair Abad during last
Cadastral Survey and after vesting of Jamindari, the said land is
vested in the State of Bihar.
(iii) It is their further case that the Sada Hukumnama has got
no value in the eyes of law and even today forged back-dated
Sada Hukumnama is being prepared and issued to grab the
valuable government land and the Sada Hukumnama does not
create title over the government land. It is stated that the
opening of Jamabandi and granting of rent receipt does not
create title and as such the plaintiffs has got no right, title and
interest over the government land.
(iv) The defendant Nos. 4 and 5 also appeared and filed their
written statement stating therein that the suit lands were never
in Khas cultivating possession of Devrani Devi and so called
Hukumnama is a forged document.
(v) It is the further case of defendant Nos. 4 and 5 that the
Mutation Case of Baghmara Anchal in the name of Devrani
Devi in respect of suit land along with other lands are collusive,
fabricated or manufactured and therefore, issuance of rent
receipts in respect of the land in question are also collusive,
forged and fabricated documents. The BCCL has obtained the
said lands on payment to the State of Bihar when BCCL has
applied before the District Administration Dhanbad for
acquisition of 224.46 acres of land in Khata No. 45 , Mouza
Bhimkanali no. 76 which gave rise to case No-11(2)83-84 and
for the time being, the District Administration, Dhanbad,
transferred 42.55 acres of land under Khata No-45, Mouza
Bhimkanali to BCCL on 26.11.87 including the land mentioned
2025: JHHC: 14230
in Schedule -A of the plaint and BCCL has been in peaceful
possession over the lands. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad
has already annulled thoka contained in the plaint mentioned in
schedule-A of the plaint in case No-11/82-83 vide order dated
31.12.83 and in view of the matter, the entire case of the
plaintiffs is falsified and plaintiffs have no case at all.
7. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the
learned trial court framed the following issues for consideration: -
I. Is the suit as framed maintainable?
II. Have the plaintiffs got cause of action for the suit
and right to sue?
III. Is the suit barred by limitation?
IV. Is the suit barred under the provisions of Bihar
Land Reforms Act, Nagpur Tenancy Act and Specific
Relief Act?
V. Has the suit been properly valued and is the court fee
paid sufficient?
VI. Have the plaintiffs title and possession over the suit
land and are the plaintiffs entitled to the reliefs claimed
in the suit?
VII. To what other or further reliefs the plaintiffs are
entitled to?
8. The plaintiffs have examined altogether 10 witnesses in support
of their case. The following documents have been marked exhibits on
behalf of the plaintiffs: -
Ext. Number Document
Ext-1 Carbon copy of Advocates notice by registered
post U/S 80 CPC.
Ext-2 Govt. rent receipt.
Ext-2/a to 2/b Govt. rent receipt dated. 31.3.83
Ext-2/c to 2/d Govt Rent receipt dt. 1.2.96
Ext-2/e to 2/f Govt rent receipt dt. 15.2.97,
Ext-3 Signature of Motilal Barai as Registrar on Deed
No. 12734 dated 24.11.82.
Ext-4 Signature of Motilal Barai as Registrar on
Registered deed No. 12735 dated 24.11.82.
Ext-5 to 5/3 Signature and hand writing of Karmchari Bhola
Prasad Lala on rent receipt No. 473045,
2025: JHHC: 14230
837121, 186509, 303306.
Ext-6 to 6/5 Sign and hand writing of Karmachari Trivani
Mishra on rent receipt No.
269992,266908,038085, 013175, 518974 and
597197.
Ext-2/G to Sign and hand writing of Karmachari Triveni
2/K Prasad on Govt. Rent receipt No. 07699,
1260054, 465048,269992 and 640273.
Ext-7 Original Hukumnama.
Ext-6/6 to 6/8 Three Malgujari rent receipts.
Ext-8 C.C of Khewat No. 2/1 & 2/2.
Ext-9 C.C of Continuous Khatian of Khata No. 45.
Ext-10. C.C of order sheet of Mutation case No.
91(X)/82-83.
Ext-11 C.C of Judgement dt. 23.6.14 in T.S No. 6/96.
Ext-11/a C.C of order dated 29.1.09 passed in case No.
5125/05 U/s 87 CNT Act.
Ext-12 Pleader commissioner report with Sketch
Mark-X Hukumnama.
9. The defendant Nos. 4 and 5 have also examined one witnesses
as D.W-1 Indrajeet Prasad and also exhibited following documents in
support of their case: -
Ext-A: - Am Istehar
Ext-B: - C.C of Khata No-45 of Mouza no.76 of
Bhimkanali
10. The learned trial court has found that the main issue of the suit
is issue No. VI i.e. Have the plaintiffs title and possession over the suit
land and are the plaintiffs entitled to the reliefs claimed in the suit,
and recorded its finding as under: -
"From perusal of Ext-A it appears that Ext-A is general
notice issued by Circle authority Baghmara Office for
which notice has been given to each public that the land
including suit land is a land of Bihar Govt, and is going
to be settled to the defendant no 4 & 5. If any person
made objection then he may file objection up to 18.5.83
since the general notice was issued by the circle
authority Baghmara. Now from perusal of Ext-B it
appears that the disputed land has been transferred by
the authority of government to defendant No. 4 & 5 and
2025: JHHC: 14230
also give possession to them. Since the defendant No 1 to
3 have not led any evidence but they have stated in their
pleading (W.S) that the opening of Jamabandi and
granting of rent receipt does not create title and the
Jamabandi has been opened in connivance with the staff
of the Anchal which was illegal, so the order of
cancellation of Jamabandi is not illegal in the eye of law.
It has been further pleaded in the Written statement that
any transfer of government land by the Devrani Devi to
the plaintiff is illegal and has also got no value in the eye
of law and the claim of plaintiff is denied. Now from
perusal of Ext-A & B it appears that although these
documents has been brought by defendant No- 4 & 5 but
these documents also relates to the defendant No- 1 to 3
who are the government authority and after taking the
pleading of defendant No1 to 3 with the Ext- A and B it
appears that the disputed land was government land and
the government of Bihar has title and possession over the
said land and govt. after inviting objection from the
general public transferred the same to defendant no. 4
&5. It is admitted position of both the parties that the
disputed land was gair abad Malik land. Further it
appears that the disputed land has been transferred to
Deorani Devi through sada Hukumnama. So from
perusal of Ext.7 it appears that it is a Sada Hukumnama
and it is not registered and the plaintiff no.2 has been
examined as plaintiff witness No.6 and he has also
admitted in his cross examination that the Hukumnama
through which the settlement was made to Devrani Devi
is not registered document and other plaintiff witness
have also supported the case.
In case of Mahadeo Urawan Vs State of Bihar and others
reported in (2009) 4 JLJR 106.
'It is well settled that transfer of land cannot be done by
virtue of only a Sada Hukumnama and an unregistered
Hukumnama is not admissible and cannot be considered
as a deed of title.'
It is also found in the case of Mahabir Kansi Vs. State of
Jharkhand that Sada Hukumnama cannot be relied upon
for the reason that the same can always be manufactured
and the plaintiff side has also not brought any document
to show the return filed by the Jamindar after abolition
of Jamindari& BLR Act came enforce and so after going
through the entire oral and documentary evidences and
the discussion made above I find and hold that on the
basis of Ext.7 Sada Hukumnama Devrani Devi got no
2025: JHHC: 14230
title of the suit land and since the vendor of plaintiff has
not got title of the suit land so the question of title to the
plaintiff on the suit land does not arise. Hence plaintiff
has failed to prove the title over the suit land. So this
issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the
defendant."
11. Issue Nos. III, IV, and V were not pressed by either party.
12. So far as issue Nos. I, II and VII are concerned, the learned trial
court recorded that since the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title
and possession over the suit land as discussed while deciding issue
No. VI, it is held that the present suit is not maintainable in its present
form and the plaintiffs have got no valid cause of action for the suit
and right to suit and they were not entitled to relief claimed in the suit
and accordingly these three issues were also decided in favour of the
defendants and against the plaintiffs and the suit was dismissed.
13. The learned 1st appellate court, after hearing both the parties
and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, has framed
the following point for determination: -
Point no. 1: Have the Plaintiffs/Appellants right, title,
interest over the suit land on the basis of sale deed
executed in their favour by Devrani Devi.
Point no. II: Whether the running jamabandi of
Plaintiffs/Appellants were cancelled by the concerned
authority according to law and is BCCL entitled to hold
the suit land on the basis of transfer made to them by
the State Government.
14. The learned 1st appellate court has recorded its finding at
paragraph 11 to 13 of the judgment as under: -
"11. For Point no. I & II:- The Plaintiffs/Appellants
claimed to purchase the suit land from Devrani Devi
thereafter their name were mutated in the Shrista of
State. They started paying rent in lieu of their
possession of the suit land in Jamabandi no. 150 and
151. Later on, State Government has transferred the
suit land along with other land of village Bhim Kanali
to BCCL defendant no. 4 & 5 then the plaintiff have
brought the suit. Shiv Kumar Rai P.W. 7 one of the
Plaintiffs/Appellants has stated that on 24-11-1982 he
has purchased the suit land from Devrani Devi
through registered sale deed then after got their name
2025: JHHC: 14230
mutated under Jamabandi no. 150 and 151. They
started paying rent to the State Government
in lieu of their possession. He has claimed that the
plaintiffs/appellants are still paying rent to the State
Government. Basudeo Pandey P.W. 10 is formal
witness who has proved the rent receipts. Shiv Kumar
Rai P.W. 6 has stated that earlier Devrani Devi was
paying rent to the State Government in lieu of her
possession of the suit land on the basis of Hukumnama
executed in her favour of the ex-landlord. Gokul
Chandra Pandey P.W. 8 has proved the rent receipts
in Exhibit 5 series of the plaintiff and their vendor.
Abhyanand Prasad P.W. 9 is another formal witness.
He has also proved the rent receipts Exhibit 2 series.
Prahalad Chandra Pramanik P.W. 7 has proved
certified copy of sale deed no. 12734 dated 24-11-82
Exhibit 3 through volume -II which he brought from
Registry Office to the court of as per order of the
court. He has also proved sale deed no. 12735 dated
24-11-1982. Shiv Kumar Rai P.W. 6 has further stated
that he has given the original sale deeds to his
learned lawyer which were misplaced then he has
filed certified copy of the sale deeds. He received no
notice from the C.O office regarding cancellation of
his Jamabandi. Indrajit Prasad D.W. 1 has deposed
before the court on behalf of BCCL (Defendant no. 4
& 5) and has stated that he was appointed as Amin in
the year 1981 in BCCL. The suit land is about 3 acres
of land under Khata no. 45 plot no. 125 of village
Bhimkanali which was recorded during cadestral
survey operation as gair abad land. On perusal of the
certified copy of the Khewat Exhibit 8 & 9, I find that
Khewatdar of Bhimkanali were Manilal Singh
Choudhary (Khewat 1/1), Mahabir Singh Choudhary
(Khewat 2/2) under Khewatdar Babul Nilkanth Singh
Choudhary of Khata no. 1. Khewat no. 2/3 was under
joint Khewatdar khewat no. 2/1 and 2/2. Khata no. 45
of village Bhimkanali having 3 plots i.e. plot no. 125
area 3.70 acres, 248 area 54.04 aces and were
recorded as Jangal Jhari whereas plot no. 197 having
area 28 decimal was recorded as house and
courtyard. The certified copy of the Khewat is Exhibit
9. One another plot i.e. plot no. 107 was recorded
Parti having area 1.43 acres. Obviously during
cadestral survey operation plot no. 125 khata no. 45 of
village Bhimkanali was Jangal Jhari and gair abad
2025: JHHC: 14230
malik land which finds support from the deposition of
Indrajit Prasad D.W. 1 who has further stated that Bihar
Government has issued Aam Ishtehar on 18-05-83 and
invited objections. The certified copy of Ishtehar is
Exhibit A on record. On perusal of same I find that
Ishtehar was also issued for an area of 3.70 acres of
plot no. 125 of Khata no. 145 of Bhimkanali. Then
Ishtehar was issued from office of C.O. Baghmara and
it is written that 58.35 acres of land of village
Bhimkanali are to be transferred to BCCL. The land
under Ishtehar as per the claim of the C.O. Baghmara
is recorded in the name of Government of Bihar. On
perusal of certified copy of the order dated 29-01-09
passed by the then Settlement Officer, Dhanbad Sri
B.B.Verma in suit no. 5125/05 instituted U/s 87 of the
CNT Act Exhibit 11/A, I find that the learned lower court
of Sri B.B. Verma, Settlement Officer, Dhanbad has
allowed that suit. On perusal of the order dated 29-01-
09 passed by the learned court of Settlment Officer,
Dhanbad I find that Shiv Kumar Roy and others have
filed this suit against Bihar Government and others
U/s 87 of the CNT Act for correcting record of rights
published during revisional survey operation for Khata
no. 45 which was recorded in the name of State of Bhar.
After hearing, the learned lower court has passed
order to publish record of rights for the suit land in
favour of Shiv Kumr Roy and Ramakant Roy. Indrajit
Prasad D.W. 1 has not stated about this fact in his
deposition. There is nothing on record to show that
against the order passed by the learned Settlement
Officer for publication of record of rights in favour of
the plaintiff the state of Jharkhand or BCCL for that
matter has brought any revision/appeal before any
competent court of jurisdiction. He has stated that
on 26-11-87 the State Government has given the land
to BCCL. Vide case no. 11 (2)/83- 84 order dated 10-
05-83 to 11-10-83 the running demand of various tenants
were cancelled. Exhibit B is the details of delivery of
possession given by the Government of Bihar to BCCL
on 26-11-1987. The suit land is also mentioned in that
letter. The map Exhibit 1/C is on record. In similarly
situated conditions BCCL has filed title suit no. 06/96
against Indra Rajwar and others. They were purchaser
of various plots under Khata no. 45 of village
Bhimkanali. The pleadings were almost same and claim
of the parties were also same. The then learned Civil
2025: JHHC: 14230
Judge (Sr. Division)-VII, Dhanbad vide Judgment
dated 23-06-14/ decree dated 05-07-14 had dismissed the
suit of BCCL on contest. In that case also the case of
the BCCL was that they have been allotted land by
State of Bihar and the defendants in that case Indra
Rajwar and others were purchaser of the suit land
from different persons. The certified copy of the
Judgment and decree are Exhibit 11 on the record.
Certified copy of both the sale deeds exhibit 3 & 4, of
the plaintiffs are on record. The plaintiffs P.W. 6 has no
knowledge about the proceeding and order dated 31-
12-1983 of case no. 11 (2)/83-84. The
Respondent/Defendants have not produced any document
to show that the Plaintiffs/Appellants were given
notice prior to cancellation of their running
Jamabandi. As per settled Principle of law a long
running Jamabandi cannot be cancelled unless fraud
and misrepresentation is established in opening of
Jamabandi. The creation of Jamabandi gives a
valuable rights to the raiyats. For this part of my
findings the reliance may be placed upon the case of
Sri Kanak Kumari Devi and others Vs State of Jharkhand
reported in 2008 (2) JLJR 572 and also on the case
of Dineshwar Prasad Vs State of Jharkhand and others
reported in 2008 (3) JLJR 273, Smt. Gulabasi Devi Vs
State of Bihar reported in 2003 (4) JCR 41
Jharkhand. As per the facts of this case the ex-
landlord have settled the suit land in favour of
Devrani Devi vide Sada Hukumnama Exhibit 7 and
thereafter she started paying rent to the ex-landlord.
After vesting of estate to the State Government she
was paying rent to the State. Her rent receipts are on
record. As per settled principle of law rent receipts
are first cause of title. The defendant/respondent have
not brought on record any document to show that the
suit land was vested in the State of Bihar at the time
of vesting of Estate in the year 1956. They have not
brought on record the return filed by the ex-landlord
to show that Devrani Devi was not the settled raiyat
on the basis of Hukumnama given by the ex-landlord
to her. If they challenge a Hukumnama Exhibit 7, as
per provision of Indian Evidence Act, they are duty
bound to prove the same which they failed to prove in
this case. State Government has not filed an iota of
evidence either documentary or oral to controvert the
case of the Plaintiffs/Appellants. State Government
2025: JHHC: 14230
was given notice U/s 80 C.P.C on 11-08-1986 by the
Plaintiffs/Appellants and copy of the notice is Exhibit
1 is on record. On perusal of the record, I find that
there is certified copy of order dated 25-03-83 passed
by the then C.O Baghmara in mutation case no. 91 (X)
82-83 filed by Shiv Kumar Roy P.W. 6. The certified
copy of order is Exhibit 10 on record and on perusal
of the same I find that vide order dated 25-03-1983 the
then learned C.O. Baghmara has allowed the mutation
of the purchaser Plaintiffs/Appellants from Devrani
Devi. In the order it is written that earlier for the suit
land under Jamabandi no. 79 Devrani Devi was
giving rent. The pleader commissioner report with
map is Exhibit 12. The Pleader Commissioner on 04-
07-1992 has given report that on spot verification he
found possession of the Plaintiffs/Appellants on the
suit land.
12. Vijay Kumar P.W. 1 has proved the carbon copy of
the notice issued under Section 80 CPC (Exhibit 1) to the
State Government....................................................
13. After going through the above discussed oral and
documentary evidence on record I find that the
defendants/respondents have failed to prove that the
registered sale deed Exhibit 3 & 4 of the
Plaintiffs/Appellants are bogus and sham documents.
They have not brought on record any proceeding of the
State Government to show that the long running
Jamabandi of the Plaintiffs/Appellants were cancelled
after giving them opportunities after hearing. I have
already held that long running Jamabandi cannot be
cancelled unless there is evidence of fraud and
misrepresentation. Earlier the then A.S.O Sri B.B. Verma
has ordered to publish the record of rights in favour of
the Plaintiffs/Appellants for the suit land against which it
appears that the defendant/respondents have not filed
any appeal/revision before the competent court. The
Pleader Commissioner report as discussed above goes to
show that the Plaintiffs/Appellants are in possession of
the suit land. So on the basis of documentary and oral
evidence on record the Plaintiffs/Appellants have proved
their right, title, interest and possession over the suit
land. The learned lower court has erred in dismissing
Title Suit no. 73/90, so the judgment dated 171015 and
decree dated 241115 passed by the then learned Civil
Judge (Sr. Division) VII, Dhanbad in Title Suit no. 73/90
2025: JHHC: 14230
are here by set aside. Both the points for consideration
are accordingly decided. It is ordered that
Plaintiffs/Appellants have right, title, interest and
possession over the suit land and in the result, it is
therefore, O R D E R E D that this appeal is allowed."
15. Submissions of the appellants recorded by this Court on
06.02.2025
"4. The learned counsel for the appellants, while
advancing his argument with respect to the first
substantial question of law, has submitted that the
plaintiffs claimed title through his vendor who in turn
claimed title through a Sada Hukumnama. He has further
submitted that there is no material on record in
connection with any document of title prior to vesting
except Sada Hukumnama. He has also submitted that
Sada Hukumnama was not even accompanied with rent
receipt issued by the ex-Zamindar and therefore it did
not show any delivery of possession. The learned counsel
has submitted that Sada Hukumnama by itself does not
confer any title upon the holder of the Hukumnama. He
has further submitted that there is no rent receipt placed
on record by the plaintiffs even immediately after vesting.
Rather the earliest rent receipt is of the year 1982-83.
The learned counsel submits that the issuance of rent
receipt issued by the State by itself does not confer any
title. The plaintiffs were placing their title on the basis of
Hukumnama and the Hukumnama itself did not confer
any title to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs.
Therefore, the first substantial question of law is fit to be
answered in favour of the appellants and against the
respondents-plaintiffs.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants has further
submitted that the property involved in this case was
subject-matter of land acquisition in case No.
11(2)/1983-84. After following all the procedure, the
delivery of possession was also given by the Government
of Bihar to BCCL vide exhibit-B on 26.11.1987 and the
appellants have already paid required compensation to
the Government. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in
Case No.11 of 82 vide order dated 31.12.83 has annulled
the thoka containing the suit land. The learned counsel
submits that if the plaintiffs had any title, they ought to
have taken steps in the acquisition proceedings but no
such step was taken and subsequently the suit was filed.
He has further submitted that in view of the aforesaid
2025: JHHC: 14230
facts and circumstances, the 2nd substantial question of
law is also fit to be answered in favour of the appellants
and against the respondents-plaintiffs."
16. Submissions of both the parties recorded by this Court on
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).
2025: JHHC: 14230
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.
2025: JHHC: 14230
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."
Findings of this Court
17. Both the substantial questions of law are taken up together for
consideration as they relate to right, title, interest and possession over
the suit land of the plaintiffs.
18. The learned trial court recorded that the defendant Nos. 1 to 3
did not lead any evidence, but stated in their written statement that
opening of jamabandi and granting of rent receipt does not create title
and alleged that the jamabandi was opened in connivance with the
staff of the Anchal and therefore the order of cancellation of
jamabandi was not illegal in the eyes of law. It was also stated in the
written statement filed by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 that any transfer of
government land by Devrani Devi to the plaintiffs is illegal and has no
value in the eyes of law and the claim of the plaintiffs was denied. The
learned trial court also recorded that the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 had
produced 2 documents i.e. Exhibit-A and B. Exhibit-A is general
notice issued by the Circle Authority, by which notice was given to
the public that the land including the suit land is a land belonging to
Government of Bihar and was going to be settled to defendant Nos. 4
and 5 and if any person has objection, they may file the objection up
to 18.05.1983. Further, from perusal of Exhibit-B, it appears that the
disputed land was transferred by the authority of the Government to
2025: JHHC: 14230
the defendant Nos. 4 and 5 who was also given possession. The
learned trial court after having recorded that the defendant Nos. 1 to 3
though did not lead any evidence, but the aforesaid was their stand in
the written statement and was of the view that Exhibit-A and B which
was filed by defendant Nos. 4 and 5 also related to defendant Nos. 1 to
3 who were the government authority and after taking the pleading of
defendant Nos. 1 to 3 with Exhibit-A and B, it appeared that the
disputed land was government land and Government of Bihar has title
and possession over the land and after inviting objection from the
general public, the land was transferred to defendant Nos. 4 and 5. The
learned trial court recorded that admittedly the disputed land was
recorded as Gair Abad Malik land and it appeared that it was
transferred to Devrani Devi through Sada Hukumnama (Exhibit-7)
and it was not registered. Thereafter, the learned trial court referred to
the judgment passed by this Court reported in (2009) 4 JLJR 106
(Mahadeo Urawan vs. State of Bihar & Others) wherein it was
observed that Sada Hukumnama being an unregistered Hukumnama is
not admissible and cannot be considered as a deed of title. The learned
trial court also relied upon another judgment wherein similar view was
given, that is, in the case of Mahavir Kansi vs. State of Jharkhand
and ultimately held that on the basis of Sada Hukumnama (Exhibit-7),
Devrani Devi got no title over the suit land. The learned trial court
further recorded that since the vendor of the plaintiffs did not have the
title over the suit land so the question of title of the plaintiffs over the
suit land did not arise and consequently held that the plaintiffs failed
to prove their title over the suit land and decided issue No. VI against
the plaintiffs.
19. The learned 1st appellate court formulated point of
determination No.-I with respect to the claim of the plaintiffs
regarding right, title, interest and possession over the suit property on
the basis of registered sale-deed executed by Devrani Devi. The
learned 1st appellate court considered the materials on record and
found that the plaintiffs after purchasing the property from Devrani
Devi through registered two sale deeds dated 24.11.1982 (Exhibit 3
2025: JHHC: 14230
and 4) got their name mutated under Jamabandi No. 150 and 151 and
were paying rent to the State Government in lieu of their possession.
The learned 1st appellate court also recorded that Devrani Devi was
paying rent to the Government in lieu of her possession with respect to
the suit property on the basis of Hukumnama executed in her favour
by the ex-landlord and PW-8 had proved the rent receipts in exhibit-5
series of the plaintiffs and their vendor.
20. The learned 1st appellate court also recorded that jamabandi was
cancelled without issuing any notice to the plaintiffs and found that
during cadastral survey operation Plot No. 125 Khata No. 45 was
jungle-jhari and was Gair Abad Malik land and the certified copy of
the istehar i.e. Exhibit-A included plot No. 125 having area of 3.70
acres which recorded that 58.35 acres of land was to be transferred to
BCCL (defendant Nos. 4 and 5) and as per the istehar (Exhibit-A), the
land was recorded in the name of Government of Bihar. The learned
1st appellate court referred to Exhibit-11/a which was certified copy of
order dated 29.01.2009 passed by the Settlement Officer, Dhanbad in
Suit No. 5125 of 2005 instituted under Section 87 of the CNT Act and
recorded that the Settlement Officer had allowed the suit filed by the
plaintiffs and others whereby the record of rights published during
revisional survey operation for Khata No. 45 which was recorded in
the name of State of Bihar was corrected and order was passed to
publish the record of rights of the suit land in favour of Shiv Kumar
Roy and Ramakant Roy and further there was nothing to show that the
said order was challenged by the State Government or defendant Nos.
4 and 5. The learned 1st appellate court also recorded that the State
Government claimed to have handed over possession of the property
to BCCL (defendant Nos. 4 and 5) on 26.11.1987 after the running
demand in favour of the tenants were cancelled in Case No. 11(2)/83-
84 vide order dated 10.05.1983 to 11.10.1983 and exhibit-B was the
details of delivery of possession given by the State of Bihar to BCCL
(defendant Nos. 4 and 5) on 26.11.1987 and the present suit land is
mentioned in Exhibit-3.
2025: JHHC: 14230
21. The learned 1st appellate court also considered the judgment
passed in the title suit filed by the BCCL in connection with similar
circumstances which was Title Suit No. 06/1996 against Indra Rajwar
and others who were purchasers of various plots under Khata No. 45
and the present case was similar to that of Title Suit No. 06/1996 and
the Title Suit No. 06/1996 filed by the BCCL was dismissed on
contest vide judgment dated 23.06.2014. The learned 1st appellate
court recorded that in Title Suit No. 06/1996 also, it was the specific
case of the BCCL that they were allotted land by the State of Bihar
and the defendants in the said case were purchasers of the suit land
from different persons. The said judgment was marked exhibit-11. The
learned 1st appellate court further recorded that the registered sale-
deeds were Exhibit-3 and 4 which are in favour of the plaintiffs and
that the plaintiffs had no knowledge about the proceeding regarding
cancellation of jamabandi and that the defendants had not produced
any documents to show that the plaintiffs were given notice prior to
cancellation to their running jamabandi and as per settled principle of
law, a long running jamabandi cannot be cancelled unless fraud and
misrepresentation is established in opening of jamabandi. The learned
1st appellate court thereafter referred to various judgments in support
of the principle of law that long standing jamabandi cannot be
cancelled in absence of fraud/misrepresentation.
22. The learned 1st appellate court thereafter referred to the
Hukumnama (Exhibit-7) and recorded that as per the facts of the case
Hukumnama was in favour of Devrani Devi who started paying rent to
ex-landlord and after vesting of the State, she was paying rent to the
State and her rent receipts were also on record. The learned 1st
appellate court also recorded that the defendants had not produced any
documentary evidence on record to show that the suit land was vested
in the State of Bihar at the time of vesting of estate in the year 1956
and they had not brought on record the returns filed by ex-landlord to
show that Devrani Devi was not the settled raiyat on the basis of
Hukumnama. The learned 1st appellate court recorded that the State
Government had not filed any evidence either documentary or oral to
2025: JHHC: 14230
controvert the case of the plaintiffs. The learned 1st appellate court
also recorded that in the order cancelling the jamabandi, it has been
recorded that for the suit land, the jamabandi was running in the name
of Devrani Devi bearing Jamabandi No. 79 who was giving rent. The
learned 1st appellate court referred to the Pleader Commissioner's
report along with the map and recorded that it was found that the
plaintiffs were in physical possession of the suit property which was
found in their favour on spot verification.
23. The undisputed facts are that the plaintiffs purchased the suit
property from Devrani Devi by two registered sale deeds both dated
24.11.1982 and got their name mutated and were paying rent to the
government under jamabandi no. 150 and 151 and as per exhibit-10 [
the order by which the jamabandi no. 150 and 151 was created in
favour of the plaintiffs vide mutation case no. 91 (X) 82-83] it has
been recorded that the land under jamabandi no. 79 was running in
the name of Devrani Devi (vendor of the plaintiffs) who was paying
rent to the State Government. So far as Devrani Devi is concerned, the
case of the plaintiffs was that she came in possession of the property
by virtue of Sada Hukumnama (Exhibit 7) executed by ex-landlord in
her favour by way of settlement and that she started paying rent to the
ex-landlord and upon vesting of estate to the State Government under
Bihar Land Reforms Act, jamabandi No. 79 was created in her name
and Devrani Devi was paying rent to the State and the rent receipts
issued in her name were also exhibited. The fact that the jamabandi
no. 79 was running in the name of Devrani Devi has been recorded in
the 1st appellate court's judgement as under:-
"..............On perusal of the record, I find that there
is certified copy of order dated 25-03-83 passed by the
then C.O Baghmara in mutation case no. 91 (X) 82-83
filed by Shiv Kumar Roy P.W. 6. The certified copy of
order is Exhibit 10 on record and on perusal of the
same I find that vide order dated 25-03-1983 the then
learned C.O. Baghmara has allowed the mutation of
the purchaser Plaintiffs/Appellants from Devrani
Devi. In the order it is written that earlier for the suit
2025: JHHC: 14230
land under Jamabandi no. 79 Devrani Devi was
giving rent."
24. As recorded by the learned 1st appellate court, it was stated by
D.W-1, the witness produced on behalf of defendant no. 4 and 5, that
vide case no. 11 (2)/83- 84 order dated 10-05-83 to 11-10-83 the
running demand of various tenants were cancelled. However, this
Court finds that the order sheet of case no. 11 (2)/83- 84 order dated
10-05-83 to 11-10-83 has not been exhibited. The learned 1st appellate
court has recorded that the plaintiffs had no knowledge about the
proceeding and order dated 31-12-1983 of case no. 11 (2)/83-84 and
thereafter the learned 1st appellate court has recorded as under:-
"............... The Respondent/Defendants have not
produced any document to show that the
Plaintiffs/Appellants were given notice prior to
cancellation of their running Jamabandi. As per
settled Principle of law a long running Jamabandi
cannot be cancelled unless fraud and misrepresentation
is established in opening of Jamabandi. The creation
of Jamabandi gives a valuable rights to the raiyats.
For this part of my findings the reliance may be
placed upon the case of Sri Kanak Kumari Devi and
others Vs State of Jharkhand reported in 2008 (2) JLJR
572 and also on the case of Dineshwar Prasad Vs
State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2008 (3) JLJR
273, Smt. Gulabasi Devi Vs State of Bihar reported in
2003 (4) JCR 41 Jharkhand................."
25. In furtherance to the aforesaid judgements cited by the learned
1st appellate court, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has cited
another judgement of this court passed in L.P.A. No. 413 of 2024
(Ganesh Burman @ Ganesh Poddar vs. The State of Jharkhand &
Others) wherein the writ petition was filed challenging the notice
issued by the Circle Officer to evict and the writ court had directed the
writ petitioner to go to the civil court for declaration of title and get
back possession and consequently, the writ petitioner was in appeal
before the Hon'ble Division Bench. The Hon'ble Division Bench held
that the State should file civil suit for declaration of title and recovery
of possession as there was long standing jamabandi and the Circle
Officer could not determine as to whether one or the other document
2025: JHHC: 14230
was fake or not genuine. The findings of the Hon'ble Division Bench
in the aforesaid judgment are quoted as under: -
"23) Admittedly, the possession of the appellant is long
standing as evidenced by the mutation order given by the
revenue authorities in his grandfather's favour in 1962-
63. So there is a Bonafide dispute of title. Therefore,
summary eviction of appellant could not have been done
without following due process of law.
24) The State should file a Civil Suit for declaration of
title and recovery of possession and then only evict the
appellant. The learned Single Judge clearly erred in
asking appellant to go the Civil Court and get back
possession.
28) We fail to understand how the Circle Officer could
determine whether a document is fake or not as he is not
conferred the power of the civil court to decide the
genuineness of document or whether it is a forgery."
26. This Court finds that numerous rent receipts issued in the name
of Devrani Devi have been produced which are Exhibits-2, 5, 5/1, 5/2,
5/3, 6, 6/1 to 6/5. From perusal of Exhibit-6/5, it is apparent that it is
rent receipt dated 31.03.1959 bearing rent receipt No. 597197 which
relates to the period 1955-56, 1956-57, 1957-58 and 1958-59 and
therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that
the earliest rent receipt which has been produced is of the year 1972,
is not correct. The learned 1st appellate court also recorded that the
year of vesting in the present case is 1956. In the rent receipts, the
jamabandi No. 79 has also been mentioned, which was ultimately
mutated by the order passed by the competent authority in the name of
the two plaintiffs pursuant to two registered sale deeds of the year
1982. Accordingly, this Court finds that there has been long standing
jamabandi running in the name of Devrani Devi and at least the rent
receipts issued in her name immediately after vesting has also been
brought on record. Further, though the order of cancellation of
jamabandi has not been exhibited and even if the jamabandi was
cancelled, the same was unilaterally cancelled by the State and there is
enough evidence on record to show that the plaintiffs had no
knowledge or notice in connection with cancellation of jamabandi.
2025: JHHC: 14230
27. It is also important to note that the State had filed the written
statement in the year 2001 stating that the Anchal Adhikari has no
power to create title over government land and that the opening of
jamabandi and granting of rent receipt does not create title and alleged
that the jamabandi was opened in connivance with the Anchal staff. It
is also important to note that the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 though alleged
that the jamabandi was illegally opened and in connivance with the
Anchal staff, but did not adduce any evidence either oral or
documentary to substantiate their stand taken in the written statement.
28. The learned 1st appellate court also recorded that the Pleader
Commissioner's report with map was dated 04.07.1992 (Exhibit-12)
who upon on the spot verification found the plaintiffs in possession of
the suit land. The learned 1st appellate court also recorded that the
Jamabandi running in the name of the plaintiffs was cancelled by the
State, but nothing was brought on record to show that the Jamabandi
was cancelled giving opportunity of hearing to the plaintiffs. The
learned 1st appellate court also took into consideration that the
Assistant Settlement Officer passed order to publish the record of
rights in favour of the plaintiffs with respect to the suit land and such
order dated 29.01.2009 passed by the Settlement Officer, Dhanbad in
Suit No. 5125 of 2005 instituted under Section 87 of the CNT Act and
was marked as exhibit-11/a. The learned 1st appellate court also
recorded that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs against the Bihar
Government and others under Section 87 of the CNT Act for
correcting the record of rights published during Revisional Survey
Operation for Khata No. 45 which was recorded in the name of State
of Bihar. The learned 1st appellate court also recorded that there was
nothing on record to show that any appeal or revision was filed before
the competent authority against the order correcting the record of
rights under Section 87 of the CNT Act.
29. This Court also finds that the learned 1 st appellate court has
referred to Exhibit-B produced by the defendant no. 4 and 5 which is
claimed to be the document regarding delivery of possession given by
the Government of Bihar to BCCL on 26.11.1987, but apparently the
2025: JHHC: 14230
Pleader Commissioner's Report dated 04.07.1992 (Exhibit-12)
revealed that on spot verification, the physical possession of the
plaintiffs was found over the suit land. It appears from the impugned
judgment that the running jamabandi in favour of the plaintiffs was
cancelled vide case No. 11(2)/83-84 vide order dated 10.05.1983 and
11.10.1983 which were passed without giving any notice to the
plaintiffs and the court recorded that the plaintiffs had no knowledge
about the proceedings dated 31.12.1983 in case No. 11(2)/83-84 and
apparently after alleged cancellation of jamabandi, the State of Bihar
vide exhibit-B handed over the possession to defendant Nos. 4 and 5
on 26.11.1987 although the physical possession of the property
remained with the plaintiffs as per the Pleader Commissioner's Report
as well as the finding recorded by the learned 1st appellate court.
30. The learned 1st appellate court has considered the entire
materials brought on record and has recorded a clear finding that the
plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property and they have proved
their possession over the suit property. Thus, the learned 1st appellate
court has not committed any illegality in holding that the plaintiffs
have proved their possession over the suit land and while recording
such finding, the learned 1st appellate court has also considered the
fact that the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in Case No. 11(2)/83-84
vide order dated 31.12.1983 had annulled the thoka containing the suit
land and has also considered Exhibit-B, the document by which the
Government of Bihar handed over possession to defendant Nos. 4 and
5 on 26.11.1987, but found that the plaintiffs were in physical
possession of the property and while doing so, the learned 1 st appellate
court has heavily relied upon the Pleader Commissioner's Report
dated 04.07.1992 and also other materials placed on record.
31. On the basis of the materials placed on record and as discussed
and considered by the learned 1st appellate court including exhibit-B,
there is no doubt that the physical possession of the suit property is
with the plaintiffs. This is over and above the fact that the suit filed
under section 87 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was also decided
in favour of the plaintiffs vide exhibit- 11/A dated 29.01.2009 passed
2025: JHHC: 14230
in Case No. 5125 of 2005 whereby a direction was issued that the
name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar be deleted from the record of rights and
the name of, interalia, the plaintiffs be entered into the record of rights
and order in the suit (exhibit-11/A) has attained finality. This Court is
of the considered view that the said order passed under Section 87 of
the CNT Act having not been challenged, there is presumption of
correctness of entries made in the record of rights in favour of the
plaintiffs in terms of the order passed under section 87 of CNT Act.
32. Section 83 of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act deals with
preliminary publication, amendment, and final publication of record of
rights. Section 83 is quoted as under: -
"83. Preliminary publication, amendment and final
publication of record-of-rights. - (1) When a draft
record-of-rights has been prepared under this Chapter,
the Revenue Officer shall publish the draft in the
prescribed manner and for the prescribed period and
shall receive and consider any objections which may be
made to any entry therein, or to any omissions therefrom,
during the period of publication.
(2) When such objections have been considered and
disposed of in the prescribed manner, the Revenue
Officer shall finally frame the record, and shall cause it
to be finally published in the prescribed manner, and the
publication shall be conclusive evidence that the record
has been duly made under this Chapter.
(3) Separate draft or final records may be published
under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) for different
local areas, estates, tenures or parts thereof."
33. Section 84 of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act deals with
presumption as to final publication and correctness of records of right.
Section 84 of C.N.T. Act is quoted as under: -
"84. Presumptions as to final publication and
correctness of record-of-rights - (1) In any suit or other
proceedings in which a record-of-rights prepared and
published under this Chapter or a duly certified copy
thereof or extract therefrom is produced, such record-of-
rights shall be presumed to have bean finally published
unless such publication is expressly denied and a
certificate, signed by the Revenue Officer, or by the
Deputy Commissioner of any district in which its local
area, estate or tenure or part thereof to which the
2025: JHHC: 14230
record-of-rights relates is wholly or partly situate,
stating that the record-of-rights has been finally
published, under this Chapter shall be conclusive
evidence of such publication.
(2) The [State] Government may, by notification, declare
with regard to any specified area, that a record-of-rights
has been finally published for every village included in
that area; and such notification shall be conclusive
evidence of such publication.
(3)Every entry in a record-of-rights so published shall
be evidence of the matter referred to in such entry and
shall be presumed to be correct until it is proved, by
evidence, to be incorrect."
34. Section 87 of the C.N.T. Act provides for institution of suits
before the revenue officer when such dispute, interalia, relates to '
(ee) as to any question relating to the title in land or to any interest in
land as between the parties to the suit; or (f) as to any other matter
and the revenue officer shall hear and decide the dispute' and as per
section 87(2) the appeal lies before the prescribed officer and second
appeal before the High Court . Section 87 of the C.N.T. Act is quoted
as under: -
"87. Institution of suits before Revenue Officer - (1) In
proceedings under this Chapter a suit may be instituted
before a Revenue Officer, at any time within three
months from the date of the certificate for the final
publication of the record-of-rights under sub-section (2)
of Section 83 of the decision of any dispute regarding
any entry which a Revenue Officer has made in, or any
omission which he has made from the record [except an
entry of a fair rent settled under the provisions of Section
85 before the final publication of the record-of-rights]
whether such dispute be,-
(a) between the landlord and tenant, or
(b) between landlords of the same or of neighbouring
estate, or
(c) between tenant and tenant, or
(d) as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant
exists, or
(e) as to whether land held rent-free is properly so held,
or [(ee) as to any question relating to the title in land or
to any interest in land as between the parties to the suit;
or]
2025: JHHC: 14230
(f) as to any other matter;
and the Revenue Officer shall hear and decide the
dispute :
Provided that the Revenue Officer may, subject to such
rules as may be made in this behalf under Section 264,
transfer any particular case or class of cases to a
competent Civil Court for trial:
Provided also that in any suit under this Section, the
Revenue Officer shall not try any issue which has been,
or is already, directly and substantially in issue between
the same parties or between parties under whom they or
any of them claim, in proceedings for the settlement of
rent under this Chapter, where such issue has been tried
and decided, or is already being tried, by a Revenue
Officer under Section 86 in proceedings instituted after
the final publication of the record-of-rights.
(2) An appeal shall lie, in the prescribed manner and to
the prescribed Officer from decisions under sub-section
(1) [and a second appeal to the High Court shall lie from
any decision on appeal of such Officer as if such decision
were an appellate-decree passed by the Judicial
Commissioner under Chapter XVI."
35. Thus, perusal of Section 84(3) reveals that there is presumption
regarding correctness of entry made in records of right so published in
terms of sub-Section (2) and there is a presumption regarding its
correctness and certainly it can be proved, by evidence, to be
incorrect. Further the final publication of record of rights is subject to
decision of suit under section 87 which in turn is subject to appellate
authority and second appeal to the high court.
36. The learned 1st appellate court by referring to exhibit- 11/A has
recorded that the entry made in Revisional Survey record of rights
with respect to the suit property was recorded in the name of 'Anabad
Bihar Sarkar' but such entry was challenged by filing a suit under
Section 87 of the CNT Act which was decided in favour of the
plaintiffs and entry made in Revisional Survey Khatiyan was directed
to be corrected and the order passed under section 87 remained
unchallenged. The appellants have no answer to the exhibit-11/A
except that exhibit-11/A was passed during the pendency of the suit.
The fact remains that the defendant no. 1 to 3 representing the State
has taken a specific stand in the written statement itself that the record
2025: JHHC: 14230
of rights is presumed to be correct unless and until the same is
challenged in the competent court of law and the same is declared as
incorrect and when the plaintiffs brought on record the order of the
competent authority in a suit decided under section 87 rectifying the
record of rights in favour of the plaintiffs of the present case, it cannot
be said that exhibit-11/A could not have been considered by the
learned courts. This is over and above the fact that no substantial
question of law has been framed with regards to admissibility of
exhibit-11/A as evidence in the case. The exhibit 11/A having attained
finality, there is statutory presumption of its correctness in favour of
the plaintiffs as a consequence of order passed in their favour under
section 87. It was for the defendants to dislodge the presumption by
adducing evidence which the defendants miserably failed to adduce.
37. This Court finds that defendant no. 1 to 3 representing the State
neither led any oral or any documentary evidence in support of the
written statement filed by them. So far as defendant no. 4 and 5 are
concerned they were claiming right under and through the defendant
no 1 to 3 and they also did not bring on record any material to
dislodge the legal presumption in favour of the plaintiffs which stood
decided and attained finality by virtue of order passed under Section
87 of the C.N.T. Act. The perusal of exhibit-11/A reveal that the order
has been passed under Section 87 of the CNT Act dated 29.01.2009 in
Case No. 5125 of 2005 in the petition filed by Sheo Kumar Roy and
Others (plaintiffs of the present case) against the State of Bihar and
Others. In the said suit under Section 87 of the CNT Act, the property
was directed to be recorded in the name of the plaintiffs Sheo Kumar
Roy and Ramakant Roy and there was a direction to delete Anabad
Bihar Sarkar in the record of rights. Thus, the entry in record of rights
stood crystalized in favour of the plaintiffs which attained finality.
This Court also finds that except handing over the possession on
papers vide exhibit-B, no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the
defendants regarding transfer of title to the defendant no. 4 and 5 and
the plaintiffs are claiming right title and possession vide registered
deeds coupled with mutation in their favour preceded by mutation in
2025: JHHC: 14230
favour of their vendor Devrani Devi since vesting in the year 1956 and
the plaintiffs were found in physical possession over the suit property
as discussed above .
38. This Court is of the considered view that merely because no
zamindari rent receipt in the name of Devrani Devi was produced
pursuant to Sada Hukumnama, the same by itself is not fatal to the
case of the plaintiffs, particularly when the suit filed under Section 87
of the CNT Act by the plaintiffs against the State was decided in
favour of the plaintiffs and there was a direction to rectify the record
of rights in favour of the plaintiffs and certainly the plaintiffs were
claiming their title through Devrani Devi. The remedy to the judgment
passed under Section 87 of the CNT Act has been provided in the Act
itself i.e. appeal before the appellate authority and Second Appeal
before the High Court, but the State did not choose to file any appeal.
39. So far as defendant Nos. 4 and 5 are concerned, they had
neither produced any document of title in their favour nor any
document has been produced with regard to land acquisition
proceedings. The documents exhibited by defendant Nos. 4 and 5 only
reveal that the State claimed to be the owner of the property and some
advertisement was issued to transfer the property to the defendant
Nos. 4 and 5 and through Exhibit-B, the State transferred the
possession of the property to defendant Nos. 4 and 5, but on
adjudication, the physical possession of the property was found to be
with the plaintiffs.
40. In the judgment passed by Hon'ble Full Bench of the Patna
High Court in the case of Mt. Ugni (supra), it has been held in
paragraph 17 that though unregistered Hukumnama is inadmissible,
but could be looked into to show the nature and character of the
possession. It has also been held that oral evidence of the terms of the
lease will not be admissible, but independent of the Hukumnama, the
rent receipts themselves indicate the rate of rent, the area and nature of
rent of the lessee and hence, independent of the Hukumnama, the
terms of raiyati settlement were inferable from other pieces of
evidence.
2025: JHHC: 14230
41. This Court finds that though the zamindari rent receipt in
favour of Devrani Devi has not been exhibited but there are enough
materials on record to show that immediately after vesting, jamabandi
no. 79 was created and rent receipt was issued in her favour and no
evidence having been led from the side of the State, it cannot be
assumed that jamabandi was fraudently/wrongly created and rent
receipts were fraudently / wrongly issued in favour of Devrani Devi
upon vesting. The allegation of connivance with the officers of the
Circle has been made, but no evidence has been led by the State either
oral or documentary even to indicate much less substantiate such
allegation. This is over and above the fact that the suit under Section
87 of the CNT Act has been decided in favour of the plaintiffs who
were claiming right, title, interest and possession through Devrani
Devi and the said judgment has attained finality.
42. So far as the judgment passed by this Court in FA No. 29 of
2009 is concerned, two points fell for determination in the appeal as
quoted in paragraph 20 of the judgment and in paragraph 21 and 24, it
has been held as under: -
"21. So far as the first point for determination regarding
Hukumnama is concerned it is pertinent to mention here that,
it is a settled principle of law that in a Hukumnama wherein
the settlement of the Raiyati interest with any person had been
reduced to writing; requires registration and if it is not
registered, it is inadmissible and no evidence could be given
as to its terms and the contents as has been held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Sri S. Sita Maharani
and others v. Chhedi Mahto and others reported in AIR 1955
SC 328. It is needless to mention that by the Hukumnama filed
in this case the settlement of the Raiyati interest with the
plaintiffs and their predecessors in interest had been reduced
to writing hence the same requires registration but as the
same is not registered, it is inadmissible and no evidence
could be given as to its terms and the contents. Hence the
same is of no help to the plaintiffs. Hence the learned trial
court was not in error by not considering the same to declare
the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Thus, the first point
for determination is answered in negative against the
plaintiffs.
2025: JHHC: 14230
24. Because of the failure on the part of the plaintiffs to put
forth evidence regarding furnishing of return by the Ex-
Landlord containing the names of the plaintiffs or their
predecessors in interest, description of area and the plots of
which settlement have been made by the Ex-Landlord before
the cutoff date 1.1.1946, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim
right, title and interest on the basis of such settlement by the
Ex-Landlord. Further admittedly the suit land being a
Gairmajrua land, State is a necessary party to a suit for
declaration of title."
43. This Court also finds that it has been recorded in paragraph 23
of the aforesaid judgment passed by this Court that the plaintiffs could
not even prove their possession over the suit property and while
referring to the case of Mt. Ugni (Supra), it has been observed that in
the case of Mt. Ugni admittedly the plaintiffs were in possession of the
suit land for more than 12 years. Moreover, in the said case, no order
passed in suit under Section 87 of the CNT Act came up for
consideration and a technical objection was also considered that since
the suit land was recorded as gairmajarua land, State was a necessary
party to the suit for declaration of title. In view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, the aforesaid judgment passed in F.A. No. 29 of
2009 is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the present case and
does not apply to this case and does not help the appellants in any
manner.
44. In the present case, jamabandi no 79 was opened in the name of
Devrani Devi immediately upon vesting and followed by issuance of
rent receipts in her name right from the year of vesting in the year
1956 and it has been claimed by the plaintiffs that creation of
jamabandi upon vesting was based on Sada Hukumnama dated 8
Ashwin 1353 B.S. in the name of Devrani Devi and she was in
possession pursuant thereto and upon abolition of zamindari she was
recognised as a raiyat by the State by creating jamabandi no. 79 in her
favour upon vesting and the plaintiffs came in possession of the
property by registered sale deed executed in their favour by Devrani
Devi in the year 1982 followed by mutation and issuance of rent
receipts under jamabandi no. 150 and 151 and the plaintiffs were
2025: JHHC: 14230
found in physical possession of the suit property. The State neither
filed any suit challenging the sale deeds nor filed any counter claim in
the suit nor led any evidence to substantiate its stand in the written
statement that the opening of jamabandi was collusive/fraudulent and
the name of Devrani Devi was not mentioned in the returns filed by
the landlord under Bihar Land Reforms Act. This Court is of the
considered view that as held by this court in L.P.A. no. 413 of 2024,
when there is a long running jamabandi, summary eviction of the
occupant cannot be done without following the due procedure of law
and the State should file civil suit for declaration of title and recovery
of possession. In the present case, jamabandi was unilaterally
cancelled without notice to the plaintiffs and through exhibit B
possession was handed over to the defendant no. 4 and 5 on paper and
plaintiffs continued in physical possession of the property by virtue of
registered sale deeds. No material has been brought on record to doubt
the genuineness of conferring and recognising raiyati rights of Devrani
Devi at the time of vesting and there is no doubt that conferment of
jamabandi rights at the time of vesting is preceded by the procedure
prescribed under Bihar Land Reforms Act.
45. This Court is of the considered view that the fact that the
jamabandi was running in the name of Devrani Devi bearing
jamabandi No. 79 and that she was giving rent to the State was duly
proved. In view of the specific findings recorded by the learned court
regarding jamabandi in favour of Devrani Devi after vesting who was
paying rent followed by transfer of property by Devrani Devi in
favour of the plaintiffs vide two registered sale-deeds in the year 1982
followed by mutation in favour of the plaintiffs vide jamabandi No.
150 and 151 in the year 1983 followed by issuance of rent receipt by
the State in favour of the plaintiffs, this Court has no doubt that there
was long running jamabandi in favour of the plaintiffs/their vendor
and it has been proved based on record that the plaintiffs are in
physical possession of the suit property and cancellation of jamabandi
without notice to the plaintiffs and handing over possession to the
defendant Nos. 4 and 5 on papers vide exhibit-B while the plaintiffs
2025: JHHC: 14230
continued in physical possession of the property is of no consequences
. This is more so in view of the fact that the suit filed under Section 87
of the CNT Act with regard to rectification of revisional survey record
of rights was decided in favour of the plaintiffs though it happened
during the pendency of the suit but the document to that effect was
duly exhibited vide exhibit- 11/A. It is important to note that though
the State did not lead in evidence in support of the written statement,
but the State had taken a specific stand in their written statement itself
in paragraph 17 that the record of rights is presumed to be correct
unless and until the same is challenged in the competent court of law
and the same is declared as incorrect and this Court finds that exhibit-
11/A is in consonance with the point raised by the defendant Nos. 1 to
3 in connection with presumption regarding correctness of entries
made in record of rights which the plaintiffs got rectified as per the
procedure prescribed by law.
46. In the present case, there is no doubt that the jamabandi was
running in the name of Devrani Devi bearing Jamabandi No. 79 at
least since the time of vesting and jamabandi stood transferred in the
name of the plaintiffs through mutation proceedings dated 25.03.1983
resulting in creation of two jamabandi Nos. 150 and 151. Thus, the
jamabandi was long standing, initially it was in the name of Devrani
Devi followed by jamabandi in the name of the plaintiffs and Devrani
Devi as well as the plaintiffs continued to pay rent to the State
Government since the time of vesting. Since land was found in
physical possession of the plaintiffs who were paying rent to the State,
the learned 1st appellate court has rightly come to the conclusion that
the possession was with the plaintiffs and such finding was based on
appreciation of materials on record including the Pleader
Commissioner's local inspection report.
47. This Court is of the considered view that the learned 1st
appellate court has not committed any perversity in holding that the
plaintiffs had title over the suit property and the title has not been
declared on the basis of Sada Hukumnama rather based on other
materials on record establishing the nature of possession of Devrani
2025: JHHC: 14230
Devi as a raiyat. The findings of the learned 1st appellate court is in
consonance with the full bench judgement passed in the case of Mt.
Ugni (supra) when seen particularly in the light of the judgement
passed in the suit decided under section 87 of the CNT Act.
48. This Court finds that the plaintiffs being in possession of the
suit property by virtue of registered sale deeds over which the State
claimed that the land stood vested in the State under Bihar Land
Reforms Act, the defendants could not have avoided the registered
sale-deed without challenging the same. The learned 1 st appellate
court has recorded after appreciating the materials on record that the
defendants failed to prove that the registered sale deeds of the
plaintiffs were bogus and sham documents and that the plaintiffs were
in physical possession of the suit property. The order of cancellation
of Jamabandi in the name of the plaintiffs has not been exhibited by
the defendants and the learned court has also held that cancellation of
jamabandi was without notice to the plaintiffs. The finding on the
point of possession was, interalia, based on the spot verification report
of the Pleader Commissioner and even the suit filed under section 87
of the CNT Act was decided in favour of the plaintiffs whereby the
wrong entry in record of rights in the name of 'Anabad Bihar Sarkar'
was directed to be rectified by entering the name of the plaintiffs.
This Court is of the considered view that the document exhibit-B
showing handing over possession by the State to the defendant no. 4
and 5 in the year 1987 after cancelling the jamabandi of the plaintiffs
was merely on paper and the property was throughout in possession of
the plaintiffs /their predecessor in interest, Devrani Devi. Devrani
Devi was in possession of the property under jamabandi number 79
for which she paid rent to the State since vesting in the year 1956 and
the defendants failed to lead any evidence showing that jamabandi
number 79 was wrongly or fraudulently created. The defendant nos. 1
to 3 representing the State alleged in the written statement that the
jamabandi number 79 in favour of Devrani Devi followed by creation
of jamabandi number 150 and 151 after purchase by the plaintiffs
through registered sale deeds in the year 1982 was collusive but
2025: JHHC: 14230
defendant no. 1 to 3 did not lead any evidence, oral or documentary, to
prove the allegation and the defendant no. 4 and 5 has also not led any
evidence to this effect. The law is well settled that the party who
alleges fraud and collusion has to lead evidence and prove such
allegation. To top it all, the suit regarding rectification of record of
rights under section 87 of C.N.T Act was decided in favour of the
plaintiffs and the judgement attained finality and thus the plaintiffs
have duly proved by placing the materials on record that jamabandi
number 79 was rightly created in favour of Devrani Devi immediately
upon vesting and thereafter in favour of the plaintiffs immediately
upon purchase from Devrani Devi and they were also in physical
possession of the suit property and the exhibit B regarding handing
over possession to the defendant no. 4 and 5 was of no consequence in
the light of the materials placed on record.
49. In view of the aforesaid discussions based on materials on
record, this Court finds that the learned 1st appellate court has not
committed perversity while deciding the title of the suit property in
favour of the plaintiffs; the 1st appellate court has not based its
findings with regards to right, title , interest and possession of the
plaintiffs with respect to the suit property solely on the basis of Sada
Hukumnama said to have been executed by the ex-landlord in favour
of the vendor of the plaintiffs but the findings are based on the other
materials placed on record as discussed above and considering the
right, title, interest and possession of the plaintiffs based on registered
sale deeds and other supporting documents including the finding of
fact that the defendants failed to prove that the sale deeds were
sham/bogus. The fact remains that the registered sale deeds were not
challenged by the defendants by filing a cross suit or counter claim
and the plaintiffs were found to be having right, title, interest and
possession of the suit property based on registered sale deeds
executed by Devrani Devi in whose favour there was long running
jamabandi since vesting supported by issuance of rent receipts since
1956, the year of vesting and the defendants failed to prove that the
jamabandi was wrongly or fraudulently opened in her name and the
2025: JHHC: 14230
State did not even lead any evidence in the case to prove the allegation
of collusion with circle staffs as alleged in the written statement. This
Court is also of the considered view that the learned 1st appellate
court has rightly held that the plaintiffs have proved their right, title,
interest and possession over the suit land and while recording such
finding the learned court has taken into consideration the factum of
cancellation of jamabandi (thoka) by the Deputy Commissioner,
Dhanbad in Case No.11(2) of 83-84 vide order dated 31.12.83 in-spite
of the fact that the order of cancellation was not exhibited and also
took note of the evidences placed on record that the cancellation was
without notice to the plaintiffs. The learned court has also considered
the factum that the plaintiffs were in physical possession of the
property and after cancelling the jamabandi (thoka) without notice
and treating the property as the government land gave possession on
paper through exhibit-B dated 26.11.1987 to the defendant nos.4 and 5
(appellants) although the physical possession was throughout with the
plaintiffs/their predecessor in interest Devrani Devi which was
supported by creation of jamabandi at the time of vesting in the name
of Devrani Devi and then upon purchase by the plaintiffs in the year
1982 through registered sale deeds and also that the suit under Section
87 of CNT Act was also decided in favour of the plaintiffs which
attained finality. Accordingly, both the substantial questions of law
are answered against the appellants and in favour of the plaintiffs.
50. Consequently, this second appeal is dismissed.
51. Pending I.A., if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Mukul/-AFR
