Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... vs Krishna Singh @ Dr. Sri Krishna Singh on 3 November, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A No. 94 of 2019
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad
Collectorate Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad
(Jharkhand).
2. Circle Officer, Govindpur, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad
(Jharkhand)
... ... Defendants/Respondents/Appellants
Versus
1. Krishna Singh @ Dr. Sri Krishna Singh, son of Late Parmeshwari
Singh, resident of 5/1, Karmik Nagar, P.O. ISM, P.S. Saraidhela,
District Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
... ... Plaintiff/Appellant/Respondent
2. Jitu Gope, Son of Gendu Gope. (Abated vide order dated
24.01.2023)
3. Chetu Mahato, Son of Sitaram Mahato, (Abated vide order dated
24.01.2023)
4. Tarachand Saw
5. Tapan Saw
6. Badri Narayan Saw
All sons of Late Bhiku Mahato (Substituted vide order dated
27.09.2018)
7. Bhawani Mahto, Son of Hariram Mahato. (Abated vide order dated
24.01.2023)
8. Nanhu Gope, Son of Hariram Mahato (Abated vide order dated
24.01.2023)
9. Gopal Mahato
10.Shyam Mahato
Both Sons of Late Gokhul Mahato
11. Mahavir Mahato (Abated vide order dated 24.01.2023)
12.Arjun Mahato
Both sons of Khelu Mahato
1
13. Smt. Shakti Rani Paul, wife of Late Umapadeo Pal
14.Manash Ranjan Pal
15.Tapas Pal
16.Vikash Ranjan Pal
17.Amit Kumar Pal
18.Ashish Kumar Pal
19.Arup Kumar Pal
20.Sumit Kumar Pal
All sons of Late Umapado Pal
21.Nitai Chandra Pal
22.Gour Chandra Pal
Both sons of Late Shyamapado Pal (Substituted vide order dated
09.10.2018)
23.Kalipado Pal, son of Late Haripal pal
24.Kartik Pal
25.Sachin Pal
Both sons of Rajnikant Pal (Substituted vide order dated
21.08.2018)
26.Sadanand Pal, Son of Late Dhananjay Pal
27.Ratan Chandra Pal, Son of Late Sharat Chandra Pal (Abated vide
order dated 16.08.2023)
28.Ashok Pal
29.Santosh Pal
30.Dulal Pal
All sons of Manohar Pal (Substituted vide order dated 21.08.2018)
31.Narendra Chandra Pal, S/O: Sadhu Charan Pal (Abated vide order
dated 16.08.2023)
32.Jyotshna Sarkar, wife of Nagendra Pal (Substituted vide order dated
21.08.2018)
33.Ravindra Singh, Son of Not known
34.Krishna Kishore Singh, Son of Not Known
35.Chand Singh, Son of Not known
2
All resident of Village- Kashiyatand, P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S. Barwadda,
District Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
36.Kameshwar Singh @ Kameshwar Kumar Sengar, son of Late
Sudarshan Singh, resident Bastacola, P.O. & P.S. Jharia, District
Dhanbad.
37.Smt. Veena Devi, wife of late Raju Choudhary (Abated vide order
dated 24.01.2023)
Resident of Chhotapichari, P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S. Barwadda, District
Dhanbad.
38. Duryodhan Choudhary, son of Late Bhukhal Choudhary (Substituted
vide order dated 29.10.2025)
38.a Kalpana Devi wife of Duryodhan Choudhary @ late Duryodhan
Prasad Choudhary
38.b Murari Choudhary,
38.c Tripurari Choudhary
38.d Gopal Choudhary
All sons of Late Duryodhan Choudhary @ Duryodhan Prasad
Choudhary, Residents of Village Chhota Pichhri, P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S.
Barwadda, District-Dhanbad
38.e Sharada Devi, D/O: Late Duryodhan Choudhary @ Duryodhan
Prasad Choudhary, wife of Sumant Singh Choudhary, resident of
Village and P.O. Kharni, P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanbad.
39.Kumari Ratnakar, W/O: Jainiwas Pandey, D/O: Ashwini Kumar, R/O:
Police Line (Hirapur), P.S. & P.O. Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad.
... ... Proforma Respondents
With
S.A. No. 114 of 2019
1. Tapas Pal aged about 43 years, Son of Late Umapado Pal
2. Vikash Ranjan Pal, aged about 39 years, son of Late Umapado Pal
3. Amit Kumar Pal, aged about 34 years, son of Late Umapado Pal
4. Ashish Kumar Pal, aged about 32 years, son of Late Umapado Pal
5. Arup Kumar Pal, aged about 27 years, son of Late Umapado Pal
6. Sumit Kumar Pal, aged about 23 years, son of Late Umapado Pal
3
7. Nitai Chandra Pal, aged about 51 years, son of Late Shyamapado Pal
8. Gour Chandra Pal, aged about 48 years, son of Late Shyamapado Pal
9. Kalipado Pal, aged about 73 years, son of Late Haripada Pal
10.Kartik Pal, aged about 36 years, son of Rajnikant pal
11.Sachin Pal, aged about 33 years, son of Rajnikant Pal
12.Sadanand Pal, aged about 65 years, son of late Dhananjay Pal
13.Ratan Chandra Pal, aged about 71 years, son of late Sharat Chandra
Pal (Substituted vide order dated 05.01.2023)
13.a Badal Chandra Pal
13.b Kajal Chandra Paul
13.c Ujawal Pal @ Ujwal pal
13.d Parimal Kumar Paul
All sons of late Ratan Chandra Pal. All resident of Kashiyatand, Bara
Pichhari, P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S. Barwadda, District-Dhanbad
14.Ashok Pal, aged about 56 years, son of Late Manohar Pal
15. Santosh Pal, aged about 54 years, son of Late Manohar Pal
16.Dulal Pal, aged about 48 years, son of Late Manohar Pal
17.Jyotshna Sarkar, aged about 56 years, daughter of Nagendra Pal
18.Smt. Shakti Rani Paul, aged about 58 years, wife of Late Umapadeo
Pal
19.Manash Ranjan Pal, aged about 45 years, son of late Umapado Pal
All are presently residing at Village-Kashiyatand, P.O. Kalyanpur,
P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanbad.
... ... Appellants/Respondents/Defendants
Versus
1. Krishna Singh @ Dr. Sri Krishna Singh aged about son of late
Parmeshwari Singh, resident of 5/1 Karmik Nagar, P.O. & P.S.
Saraidhela, District Dhanbad
... ... Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff
2. State of Jharkhand represented through D.C., Dhanbad, Office at
Collectorate Dhanbad, P.O. & P.S. Dhanbad, District Dhanbad
3. Circle Officer, Govindpur, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad.
... ... Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
4
4. Jitu Gope, son of Gendu Gope (Abated vide order dated 03.04.2023)
5. Chetu Mahato, Sonof Sitarama Mahato (Abated vide order dated
03.04.2023)
6. Tarachand Saw
7. Tapan Saw
8. Badri Narayan Saw
No. 5 to 7 sons of late Bhiku Mahato
9. Bhawani Mahato, son of Hariram Mahato (Abated vide order dated
03.04.2023)
10.Nanhu Gope, son of Hariram Mahato (Abated vide order dated
03.04.2023)
11.Gopal Mahato
12.Shyam Mahato
No.10 and 11 are sons of late Gokhul Mahato
13. Mahavir Mahato, Son of Khelu Mahato (Abated vide order dated
03.04.2023)
14. Arjun Mahato, son of Khelu Mahato
15.Ravindra Singh, son of not known
16.Krishna Kishore Singh, son of not known
17.Chand Sngh, son of not known
All are presently residing at Village-Kashiyatand, P.O. Kalyanpur,
P.S. Barwadda, District Dhanbad.
... ... Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
18.Kameshwar Singh @ Kameshwar Kumar Sengar, son of late
Sudarshand Singh, resident of Bastacola, P.O. & P.S. Jharia, District
Dhanbad
19.Smt. Veena Devi, wife of late Raju Choudhary (Abated vide order
dated 03.04.2023)
20.Duryodhan Choudhary, son of late Bhukhal Choudhary (Abated vide
order dated 03.04.2023)
No. 19 and 20 are residents of Chhotapichari, P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S.
Barwadda, District Dhanbad
5
21.Narendra Chandra Paul, son of not known resident of Village-
Kashiyatand, P.O. Kalyanpur, P.S. Barwadda, District-Dhnabad.
... ... Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiffs
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant-State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, SC-I
For the Appellants : Ms. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate
[In S.A. No. 114 o 2019]
For LR of respondent No. 38 :Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary, Advocate
For the Resp. No.39 : Mr. Sudarshan Shrivasatava, Advocate
: Mr. Sidharth Sudhanshu, Advocate
[In S.A. No.99 of 2019]
For respondent No. 26 : Ms. Puja Agarwal, Advocate
For the Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Senior Advocate
: Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Aman Kedia, Advocate
[In S.A. No. 94 of 2019]
---
25/03.11.2025
1. These appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 03rd
January, 2019 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad
in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.17 of 2018 whereby the learned
appellate court has allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and has
reversed the order dated 24.03.2018 passed by Revenue Officer,
Dhanbad in case No. 18 of 2011. The Revenue Officer, Dhanbad had
dismissed the suit seeking rectification of the finally published record
of rights being case No. 18 of 2011.Both the appeals arise out of the
same impugned judgement passed by the appellate court under section
87 (2) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred
to as the CNT Act). The 1st appeal was filed against the order passed
by the revenue officer.
2. The hearing of the case has been taken up from the records of
S.A. No. 94 of 2019 as agreed by the learned counsels appearing on
behalf of the parties.
3. On 30.10.2025 the following points have been framed for
consideration: -
i. Whether the suit was barred by limitation?
ii. If the suit was barred by limitation, whether the learned
Revenue Officer had the power to condone the delay in
filing the suit?
iii. Whether the suit was maintainable on account of absence
of notice under Section 80 CPC?
iv. Whether the suit before the Revenue Officer could have
proceeded in view of pendency of Title Suit No.119 of
2014 challenging the two said deeds no. 24951 dated
1.10.1970 and 25097 dated 6.10.1970 alleging fraud
which was filed after institution of the suit before the
Revenue Officer but before its disposal on 24.03.2018?
v. What would be the consequence of suit filed by
respondent no. 39 (intervenor) at the stage of pendency of
the 1st appeal being title suit no. 201 of 2018 challenging
the two said deeds no. 24951 dated 1.10.1970 and 25097
dated 6.10.1970 alleging fraud?
vi. Whether the decision in Suit No.544 of 2001 is binding on
the parties?
Submission regarding the 1st and 2nd points for consideration:-
4. The learned counsel for the appellant-State has referred to the
petition filed under Section 87 of the CNT Act which was filed on
15.03.2011 and has submitted that it is an admitted fact that the record
of rights was finally published on 15.05.2001. The learned counsel
submits that the applicants themselves had filed a petition seeking
condonation of delay meaning thereby that there was no dispute that
the petition was barred by limitation. So far as explanation for delay is
concerned it was only mentioned in paragraph 11 of the plaint that the
applicants were staying outside and subsequently, they obtained the
khatiyan and then they came to know that the period for seeking
rectification of record of rights under Section 87 had already expired
and they are filing a separate petition seeking condonation of delay. In
the petition seeking condonation of delay the only explanation which
has been furnished is in paragraph 2 , 3 and 4 as follows: -
"(2) the plaintiff are not aware of the publication of
revisional khatiyan of mouza Bara Pichari
(3) That, the plaintiffs obtained the certified copy of
revision Khatiyan in the year, 2011,
(4) That, after obtaining the certified copy of revisional the
present application for correction of khatiyan."
5. The learned counsel has submitted that there is no explanation
for condonation of delay in as much as the applicants did not disclose
as to when and how they got knowledge about the error in record of
rights.
6. He has submitted that the delay in filing the petition seeking
rectification was condoned on 10.05.2011 by a cryptic order in as
much as it does not disclose as to whether the parties were heard while
condoning the delay. The learned counsel has submitted that the suit
being admittedly barred by limitation, there was no occasion to
condone the delay as the same is not permissible in law. He has
referred to the judgment passed by this court in S.A. No. 89 of 2016
decided on 26th August, 2025 which has been reported in 2025 (4)
JBCJ 216 (H.C.) paragraph 17 and 20 of the reported judgment.
7. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 2925
[Directorate of Revenue Intelligence vs. Puspha L. Tolani and
Others] paragraph 8, 9 and 10 on the point that notice under Section
80 CPC is mandatory and also on the point that there is no provision
for condonation of delay so far as suits are concerned. He has then
referred to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed
in Civil Appeal No. 10047 of 2025 [Odisha State Financial
Corporation vs. Vigyan Chemical Industries And Others] decided on
5th August, 2025 and has referred paragraph 25, 25.1 and 26 and has
submitted that the requirement of notice under Section 80 CPC and its
purpose has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it has
been held that the provision is a mandatory provision and if that is not
complied, the suit can be dismissed even at the stage of Order VII
Rule 11 of CPC. He has also submitted that non-compliance of the
notice under Section 80 CPC is fatal to the suit.
8. He has also submitted that before the Revenue Officer, while
responding to the plaint in the suit, a specific stand was taken by the
State that the suit was barred on account of non-furnishing of notice
under Section 80 CPC, but neither the Revenue Officer nor the learned
1st appellate court has dealt with the issue and a point for
consideration has been framed relating to Section 80 CPC which is fit
to be answered in favour of the appellant-State.
Arguments of the respondent No.1
9. With respect to point of consideration No. (i) & (ii), the
Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the suit
cannot be said to be barred by limitation inasmuch as the plaintiffs
applied for rectification of revisional record of rights after they came
to know about the error. The learned counsel has referred to the
judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2010 SC
3240 [Daya Singh and another vs. Gurdev Singh through L.Rs] and
has referred paragraph 10 to submit that entry in record of right by
itself does not give a cause of action to file a suit. He has also relied
upon the judgment passed by this Court reported in (2003) 2 JCR 134
[Dwarika Sonar and others vs. Most Bilguli and others] and has
referred paragraph 20 of the said judgment to submit that it has been
held that the maximum period of limitation for filing the suit for
declaration of title, recovery of possession and for challenging the
entry made in survey records of right will be 12 years from the date of
final publication of record of rights. He has submitted that it was also
noticed by the court that it was not a case of the plaintiffs that he was
not aware or he had no knowledge about the publication of the record
of right in the name of the defendant rather it was specific case of the
plaintiff that in the said case the record of right was published in the
year 1966 in the name of the defendant and the suit was filed after 18
years i.e. in 1984.
10. The learned counsel submits that date of knowledge is the
crucial date to commence the physical running of the time with regard
to filing a suit for rectification of record of rights. He submits that the
case reported in (2003) 2 JCR 134 (Supra) was arising out of a
regular suit filed before the Civil Court and in the present case it is a
suit filed before the Revenue Officer under Section 87(1) of CNT Act,
but the principles of law with regard to computation of the period of
limitation would be the same. The limitation prescribed under Section
87(1) of CNT Act is three months from the date of publication of
record of right. However, as the mere publication of record of rights
does not give the cause of action to file the suit, therefore, the date of
knowledge is the crucial date.
11. He submits that in the main petition which was filed before the
Revenue Officer and also in the petition seeking condonation of delay,
it was mentioned that after having knowledge, they applied for
certified copy of the Khatiyan and thereafter, the suit was filed. He
submits that the said statement having been made is enough to suggest
that the date of knowledge was of the year 2011. The learned counsel
has submitted that the period of limitation was to be commenced from
the date of knowledge and therefore, the suit was filed within the
period of limitation of three months. This would be the submission,
even if it is assumed that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not
applicable to the suit filed before the revenue officers.
12. Learned counsel has also referred to the provisions of Section
230 of the CNT Act and has submitted that the Indian Limitation Act
1980 is applicable to suits filed under the provision of Section 87 of
the CNT Act, 1908.
13. With respect to point of consideration No.(iii), the learned
counsel has submit that no specific argument in connection with
notice under Section 80 CPC was made before the learned courts
inspite of the fact that this point was raised in the written statement
filed by the State as well as by the private respondent before the court.
14. Learned counsel has submitted that accordingly, there was no
occasion for the court to pronounce upon the absence of notice under
Section 80 of CPC. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions,
the learned counsel has also submitted that Section 80 of the CPC is
applicable only in a regular suit filed under CPC and the same has no
applicability so far as the suit filed before the Revenue Officer under
the CNT Act is concerned. He has submitted that the suit before the
Revenue Officer is guided by the rules framed under Chota Nagpur
Tenancy Rules 1959 and has in particular referred to Rule 33. Learned
counsel has referred to Section 265 of the CNT Act which deals with
power to make rules to procedure on application of Code of Civil
Procedure. He submits that any provisions of CPC would be
applicable for the suit under the CNT Act only when a rule to that
effect is framed. He submits that no such rule has been framed
mandating the pre-requisite of service of notice under Section 80 of
CPC. He has referred to Chapter 6 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Rules,
1959 which deals with the procedure to be followed by Revenue
Officer with regard to record of rights and settlement and has referred
to Rule 33 thereof which deals with the steps to be taken by the
Revenue Officer. He has referred to rule 33(ix) which deals with
distribution of copies of records of right to the parties interested. The
learned counsel submits that rule 33(ix) has been taken into
consideration by the learned 1st appellate court while dealing with the
point of limitation.
15. So far as point of consideration No.(iv), the learned counsel for
the respondent No.1 has submitted that the sale deed involved in the
Title Suit No. 119 of 2014 does not cover the entire suit property.
16. The learned counsel submits that the property involved in the
Title Suit No.119 of 2014 covers the property in CS Plot No.2790,
1730 and 2875 recorded in C.S Khatian No.152.
17. Learned counsel has submitted that in the Title Suit No.119 of
2014 the entire property involved in the present case is not in dispute.
He has submitted that in the relief portion thereof only one sale deed
i.e. sale deed No.24951 dated 5.10.1970 is sought to be declared as
forged, sham and illegal and void document. However, the plaint in
paragraph 24 also refers to forgery of the document i.e. sale deed No.
24951 dated 05.10.1970 and sale deed No.25097 dated 06.10.1970.
The learned counsel has submitted that the revenue officer while
deciding the suit has referred to the Title Suit No.119 of 2014 and the
learned 1st appellate authority has already observed that if the
competent civil court decided that the sale deed, which is the basis of
the claim of the plaintiff over the land in question, is forged and
fabricated and the private respondents are title holder of the part of the
suit land automatically, the order passed by the revenue authority will
not come into force.
18. The learned counsel submits that the case of the parties who
have filed the Title Suit stands duly protected by the learned 1 st
appellate court's judgement in this case. Learned counsel has
submitted that so far as the other Title Suit which was filed during the
pendency of the 1st appellate being Title Suit No. 201 of 2018, the
legality and validity of the two sale deeds is also involved in the said
case and the judgment in the title suit will take its own course. The
Title Suit No. 201 of 2018 has been filed by the respondent No. 39
who is the intervener in the present case whose intervention has been
allowed. He submits that the claim of the intervener will stand duly
protected by the judgment to be passed by the learned Civil Court in
the pending suit.
19. With respect to the point for consideration No.(vi), the learned
counsel has submitted that the respondent No.1 was never party in the
said proceedings and therefore, the judgment passed therein is not
binding upon the respondent No.1. The learned counsel has submitted
that he was not party in the suit No. 544 of 2001 and therefore, it is
not binding upon respondent No.1. However, during the course of
argument it transpired that suit No.544 of 2001 was relating to a
portion of the property involved in this case i.e. Khata No. 401/152
Khesra No. 2509/1730, 2510/1730 and 4081/2875 (part) and the suit
involved in the present case was filed after more than 10 years relates
to the same record of rights where the land was recorded in the name
of State of Bihar.
Arguments of the Intervener:
20. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 39
(intervener) has submitted that the sale deed No.24951 dated
05.10.1970 and 25097 dated 06.10.1970 have been challenged in Title
Suit No. 201 of 2018. The respondent No.39 is only concerned with a
portion of the property which is not included in the schedule of the
property involved in this case. He has submitted that his concern is in
connection with Khesra No. 2866 (part) area 56.14 decimal Khata
No.152 and submits that Khesra No. 2866 is not a part of the property
which has been enumerated in the order passed by the learned revenue
officer. During the court proceeding, the learned counsel has provided
a copy of the plaint before this court. The learned counsel therefore,
submits that technically speaking the right, title, interest etc of the
respondent No.39 is not directly involved when seeing in the light of
the description of the property in the schedule of the plaint involved in
this case, but both the courts have referred to the aforesaid two sale
deeds of 1970 and therefore, respondent No.39 found it proper to
intervene in the present proceedings and the intervention has been
allowed. He has submitted that the respondent No.39 is concerned
with the fact that any judgment passed in this case may not prejudice
his right which is pending in Title Suit No.201 of 2018. Accordingly,
he submits that his main argument would be with respect to the point
for consideration No. (i), (ii) & (iii). Learned counsel has submitted
that they have also filed a cross suit being Original Suit No. 180 of
2020 and has also produced a copy of the cross suit.
21. The learned counsel has referred to Section 4 of CPC and has
submitted that in absence of any specific provision to the contrary of
CPC nothing in the CPC is deemed to limit or otherwise effect any
special or local law enforce or any special jurisdiction of power
conferred or any special form of procedure prescribed by or under the
law for time for enforce. The learned counsel has submitted that in
absence of any contrary provisions in the CNT Act, the provisions of
CPC would apply in the suit.
22. Learned counsel then relied upon Section 5 of the CPC to
submit that "Where any Revenue Courts are governed by the
provisions of this Code in those matters of procedure upon which any
special enactment applicable to them is silent, the State Government
may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that any portions
of those provisions which are not expressly made applicable by this
Code shall not apply to those Courts, or shall only apply to them with
such modifications as the State Government may prescribe. He submit
in absence of any notification by the state government, the CPC ipso
facto would apply to the revenue courts.
23. Learned counsel then referred to Section 9 of the CPC to submit
that the court is to try all the suits unless it is expressly or impliedly
barred. The learned counsel then referred to Section 87 (2) of the CNT
Act and has submitted that in appropriate case the revenue court may
refer the matter to the civil court for adjudication. Meaning thereby,
that the jurisdiction of the court is not expressly or impliedly barred
under Section 87 of the CNT Act. Learned counsel submits that once
the revenue court refers the matter to the civil court for adjudication
then under such circumstances there can be no question of exclusion
of Section 80 of the CPC which is a mandatory provision. The learned
counsel submits that there is no exclusion provided under Section 80
CPC that it will not apply to a proceeding which has been referred to
the court for adjudication by the revenue court.
24. Learned counsel submits that the provision of CPC when read
with the provision of the CNT Act, there is no question of exclusion of
Section 80 of CPC with respect to suit filed under Section 87 of the
CNT Act.
25. Learned counsel submits that the judgment which have been
cited by the learned counsel for the appellant with respect to the
applicability and the object of Section 80 of CPC is to avoid
unnecessary litigation against the State and considering the object of
Section 80 CPC, there is no scope for exclusion of Section 80 CPC so
far as suits under Section 87 of the CNT Act are concerned. He
submits that Section 80 CPC is a mandatory provision, in absence of
which the suit itself was not maintainable.
26. Learned counsel has also submitted that specific plea having
been raised by the State and also the private party in connection with
absence of notice under Section 80 CPC, it can be said that the
absence of notice under Section 80 CPC was fatal to the suit itself. It
suffered from inherent defect.
27. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1 [S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By LRS vs. Jagannath (Dead) By LRS
and others] paragraph No.5 to submit that finality of litigation cannot
be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine
of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants.
28. Learned counsel has referred Section 84 of the CNT Act and
has submitted that there is a presumption as to the final publication
and correctness of the record of right and therefore, the plaintiffs in
the present case cannot deny the knowledge of publication. Learned
counsel submits that the period of limitation commences under
Section 87 of CNT Act from the date of publication and not from the
date of knowledge.
29. In reply, The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has also
referred to the judgement passed by Hon'ble Calcutta High Court
reported in AIR 1936 Calcutta 456 (Rai Kiran Chandra Roy
Bahadur and others Versus Tarak Nath Gangopadhyay and others)
and referred to page no.3 of the said judgment and submits that the
cause of action to the suit is a serious question to decide as to whether
the suit was barred by limitation. During the course of hearing, a
reference has also been made to Section 231 of the CNT Act.
30. The learned counsel for the appellant-State, in response, has
referred to Rule 66 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Rules, 1959 and has
submitted that the proceeding under Section 87 has been directed to be
dealt with in all respects as suits between the parties.
31. The learned counsel has referred to Section 114 illustration (e)
of the Indian Evidence Act to submit that official acts are presumed to
have been regularly performed and there is no illegality in the
publication of the finally published record of rights in the instant case,
nor any such allegation has been levelled.
32. Learned counsel for the appellants has adopted the same
argument, but has submitted that the relief of the appellants is
confined only to Khesra No. 2509/1730 area 104 decimal, Khesra No.
2510/1730 area 77 decimal and Khesra No. 4081/2875 area 1.81 acre
out of 5.80 acres. She has submitted that this property was involved in
the earlier suit being Suit No. 544 of 2001 wherein a judgment was
passed directing the State to rectify the record-of-rights and the said
judgment has attained finality. The learned counsel has submitted that
the respondent no. 1 has included this property also while challenging
the same record-of-rights published in the year 2001 and the revenue
suit has been filed after expiry of more than 10 years from the date of
publication of the record-of-rights.
33. Learned counsel further submits that in spite of the fact that
Revenue Suit No. 544 of 2001 was brought on record, but till date, the
same has not been challenged by the respondent no. 1, although they
are also claiming the same property. The learned counsel has
submitted that this property is also involved in the two sale-deeds of
the year 1970 in connection with which two title suits are pending
alleging fraud and forgery. The learned counsel has submitted that the
learned 1st appellate court has already observed that the judgment in
the title suit will govern the parties and the judgment in the revenue
suit will give way to the final judgment to be decided in the two civil
suits.
34. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 in S.A. No. 114 of
2019 has submitted that they are not interested in this appeal.
35. Arguments concluded.
36. Judgement is reserved.
37. Post these cases for judgment on 06th January 2026 or any other
date as may be notified by this Court before 06th January 2026.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
03.11.2025
Binit/-Rakesh/-Saurav/-Pankaj/-
