Jharkhand High Court
Shyam Singh @ Shyamapada Singh vs M/S Indian Iron Steel Co. Ltd (Now Sail ... on 8 October, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2025:JHHC:31082
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S. A. No. 463 of 2018
1. Shyam Singh @ Shyamapada Singh, aged about 56 years.
2. Bishwanath Singh, aged about 51 years
No.1 and 2 both sons of Late Ram Singh
3. Gouri Devi, W/o: Late Ram Singh, aged about 82 years (Dead and
deleted vide order dated 16.01.2023)
4. Gita Devi, aged about 60 years
5. Mamta Devi, aged about 45 years.
No.4 and 5 both daughters of Late Ram Singh
All residents of Village- Parasbania, P.O. Khas Jenagora, P.S.-
Baliapur, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand)
... ... Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants
Versus
1. M/s Indian Iron Steel Co. Ltd (now SAIL Chasnala Colliery
Division) having its Head Office at Burnpur and Local Office at
Colliery Complex, Chasnala, R.M.D. SAIL, P.O.- Chasnala, P.S.-
Jorapokhar, District-Dhanbad.
2. General Manager, Chasnala Colliery, P.O. Chasnala, P.S.
Jorapokhar, District-Dhanbad.
... ... Defendants/Respondents/Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant : Mr. R.N. Sahay, Advocate
For the Respondents :
---
Lastly heard on 06th October, 2025
16/08.10.2025
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated
02.08.2018 (decree signed on 07.08.2018) passed by the learned
Principal District Judge, Dhanbad in Civil Appeal No. 58 of 2017
affirming the judgment dated 07.06.2017 (decree signed on
16.06.2017) in Title Suit No. 126 of 2004 passed by learned Sub
Judge (Senior Division)-VI, Dhanbad.
2. The title suit was dismissed by the learned trial court and the
judgment and decreed passed by the learned trial court was affirmed
by the learned 1st appellate court. Consequently, the plaintiffs are the
appellants before this Court.
3. The title suit was filed for the following reliefs:-
2025:JHHC:31082
a) For a decree declaring the plaintiff's occupancy right, title,
interest over the Schedule 'B' land and for recovery of
possession thereof.
b) For removal of the erection, structures etc. on the Schedule
'B' land within a time fixed by the court and on his failure
the plaintiff may be given liberty to dismantle the same and
realize Rs.2,500/- as costs hereof.
c) For a decree for permanent injunction restraining the
defendants, its successors, employees, contractors,
labourer's etc. from giving over the schedule 'B' land,
making any erection, structures etc. on in anyway disturb
the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs therein.
d) For all costs of the suit.
e) For any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiffs may be
found entitled to.
Arguments of the appellants:-
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
impugned judgments are perverse. It is submitted that though there
are concurrent finding recorded by both the courts with regard to right,
title and possession of the defendants with regard to Schedule B
properties, but the learned courts have miserably failed to consider the
oral evidence of P.W. 5 Paragraph 12 and 13, P.W.7 Paragraph 2 and
3, P.W. 2 Paragraph 6 and 7, P.W.1 Paragraphs 7, 8 and 9 which
clearly reveals that bulldozer was used in the suit property and the
plaintiffs were dispossessed on 31.01.2008 and these witnesses have
stated that the plaintiffs were in possession of the remaining area i.e.
17.16 acres of land prior to 31.01.2008. The learned counsel has
submitted that the plaintiffs have been dispossessed from the property
during the pendency of this case and the documentary evidences
produced by the plaintiffs in this regard have also not been properly
considered by the learned courts.
Case of the plaintiffs
5. Plaintiffs Ram Singh, now deceased and substituted by his legal
heirs namely Gouri Devi, Gita Devi and Mamta Devi, Shyam Narayan
@ Shyamapada Singh and Bishwanath Singh, brought the suit against
defendants M/s Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd., and General
Manager Chasnala Colliery for the aforesaid relief.
2025:JHHC:31082
6. It is not in dispute that C.S. Plot No.621 along with other
lands was recorded under Khata No.30 of Mouja Parasbania in the
name of Khanju Kumari. The details of the property were mentioned
in schedule 'A' of the plaint.
The plaint.
7. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Khanju Kumari died leaving
behind her only daughter Helumani Debya who was the grandmother
of deceased plaintiff No.1 (Ram Singh) and great grandmother of
plaintiff No.2 Shyam Narayan and Bishwanath Singh. After the death
of Helumani Debya, land mentioned in schedule 'A' of the plaint was
inherited by her only son namely Debu Singh who was in possession
of the land and who exercised various acts of cultivation on that land.
8. It was asserted that Debu Singh sold 12 acres of land mentioned
in schedule A of the plaint by two registered sale deeds Nos.8103 and
8104 dated 01.06.1964 to Shymal Kumar Mukherjee who was
representative of ISSCO Company. After the death of Debu Singh in
1989, the remaining land of schedule 'A' which has been mentioned in
schedule 'B' of the plaint came in possession of his only son Ram
Singh and his two sons. In course of extension of Chasnala Project
several lands were acquired and the company acquiring the land
promised to pay employment to the land loosers. In this regard, there
had been an agreement between the defendant company and BIHAR
KAMGAR UNION. The plaintiffs tried their level best to get
employment in the company in lieu of 12 acres of land which Debu
Singh had sold through two sale deed Nos.8103 and 8104 dated
01.06.1964 to Shyamal Kumar Mukherjee, but the defendant did not
provide employment.
9. The plaintiffs served legal notice on 28.2.2002 in which the
plaintiffs had asked the defendant company to vacate plot no.621, but
the defendant company in reply dated 11.3.2002 claimed that only 12
acres of land in the plot has been purchased by the plaintiffs, but there
was no reference of employment to the family members of the
plaintiffs.
2025:JHHC:31082
10. It was asserted that in the first week of March 2004 the
defendant company encroached schedule B land in one night and
erected the structures with a view to dispossess the plaintiff.
The written statement.
11. In this suit there were two defendants. Defendant No.1 was
ISSCO Company and defendant No.2 was Chasnalla Colliery. The
court proceeded ex-parte against defendant No.1. Defendant No.2
submitted written statement.
12. Apart from the formal denials the defendant No.2 denied the
genealogical history of the plaintiff and also denied the story of the
possession. Helumani Debya was not the only daughter of Khanju
Kumari but she had three daughters namely Late Badwa Devi,
Manchuran Devi and Helu Devi @ Chunki Devi and the legal heirs of
these three daughters of Khanju Kumari have filed a title Partition Suit
No.307/15 which is still pending, in which plaintiffs are also party.
13. The defendant is possessing the entire land since 1964 and on
the land several quarters, children park, playground and colony to
roads have been constructed. The defendant claimed title over the suit
property on the basis of registered sale deeds/acquisition of land/lease
:-
a) two sale deeds bearing No.8103 and 8104 dated 01.06.1964
whereby the defendant purchased 12 acres of land from the
father of the plaintiff No.1 namely Debu Singh;
b) Baruni Mahatain had purchased 22 bigha of land with plot
no.621 and by virtue of two sale deeds bearing No.1856 and
1857 dated 14.2.1964 and the defendant acquired 16.5 bigha
of land and 3.5 bigha of land respectively. Since 1964 the
defendant came in peaceful possession of the land.
c) The defendant company purchased 2 acres of land by
registered sale deed no.14542 and 1.66 acres vide registered
sale deed no.14543. 0.66 acres of land was acquired vide
registered sale deed no.14543 dated 12.11.1963 executed in
the name of D.D. Chatterjee.
d) The defendant claimed valid, right and possession over the
land having an area of 22.98 acres in Plot No.621.
2025:JHHC:31082
e) About 7 acres of land (621) was given in possession of the
defendant by Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd., Sindri on
the basis of lease agreement executed on 2.2.1972.
14. The Company after getting possession of the land erected
structures like house children park, playground etc. on the land about
40 years ago and the plot in dispute is an old one on which there is a
colony and other old installation of the company. It was asserted that
the suit be dismissed because the plaintiffs have absolutely no any
cause of action for this suit.
15. The learned trial court had framed the following issues for
adjudication: -
i.Is the suit as framed legally maintainable?
ii.Is the present suit is barred by limitation?
iii.Is the suit is barred by waiver, estoppel or acquiescence?
iv. Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree for declaration in their
right, title and ownership over the plaint schedule B land?
v. Is the plaintiff entitled for a decree for recovery of
possession has been schedule B land by his removal of
structures and erection thereon?
vi. Is the plaintiff entitled to the relief claimed in the suit?
16. In support of the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs had
examined as many as 7 witnesses and also produced some
documentary evidence which are as follows:-
Oral Evidence on behalf of plaintiffs
P.W.1 Guzarlal Bauri
P.W.2 Durga Das Ojha
P.W.3 Khagen Paramanik
P.W.4 Pralahad Gorai
P.W.5 Shyam Narayan Singh
P.W.6 Bhimchandra Mahato
P.W.7 Baleshwar Rana
2025:JHHC:31082
Documentary Evidence on behalf of plaintiffs
Exhibit 1 Notice dated 23.12.1998.
Exhibit 2 Letter No. P.D./Land
Acquisition/98/2053 dated
29.12.1998.
Exhibit 3 & 3/A Two legal notices dated 27.2.2002
and 11.3.2002
Exhibit 4 Malgujari Rent Receipt.
Exhibit 5 Carbon copy of letter No.287
dated 3.6.2008 (report of C.O.
Baliapur)
Exhibit 6 Original copy of letter dated
11.4.2008 of Baleshwar Rana,
Revenue Clerk, to C.O. Baliapur.
Exhibit 7 Original khatiyan of khata No.30.
Exhibit 8 to 8/2 Certified copy of order passed in
Mutation Case No.7(8)83-84 and
certified copy of order in mutation
case no.7(8)83-84 and certified
copy of order in mutation case
no.7(8)83-84.
Exhibit 9 & 9/1 Certified copy of Deed No.8103
and 8104 respectively.
Exhibit 10 Certified copy of sale deed
no.14688.
Exhibit 11 Copy of memo no.2513 dated
3.11.2010 of the District Registry
Office.
Exhibit 12 Copy of memo no.1043 dated
25.10.2010 of office of C.O.
Baliapur.
Exhibit 13 Copy of memo no.559 dated
28.8.2010 of C.O. Office,
Dhanbad.
Exhibit 14 Certified copy of registered gift
deed no.1500 dated 18.4.1939 by
Nuna Kumari and others in favour
of Debrat Singh.
Exhibit X Identification is permanent lease
deed given by Khanju Kumari in
favour of Helumani Debya on
19.06.1935
2025:JHHC:31082
17. In support of the case of the defendant, the defendant had
examined as many as 04 witnesses and numerous documents were
also exhibited which are as follows:-
Oral Evidence on behalf of defendant
D.W.1 Shiv Kumar Mishra
D.W.2 Devi Kumar Ojha
D.W.3 Niranjan Gorai
D.W.4 A.N.H. Hemram
Documentary Evidence on behalf of defendants
Exhibit A to A/3 Rent receipts
Exhibit B to B/1 Notice and payment notice of L.A.
Exhibit C to C/4 Sale deed no.14542, 14543,
14544(12.11.1963), 1856,
1857(14.2.1964).
Exhibit D Lease Deed No.6156.
Exhibit E Photo-copy of plaint and title
Exhibit F Certified copy of W/S of defendant
Nos.1, 4 and 5 in Title Partition
Suit No.307/15(with objection).
18. Findings of the learned trial court with respect to the main
issue, that is, issue no. (iv) and (v), in short, are as under: -
i. Admittedly, Schedule B land having an area of 17.16 acre is a
portion of schedule A land which is situated in mouja
Parasbania(No.158), Khata No.30, Plot No.621, of raiyyati land
recorded in the name of Smt Khanju Kumari total area 29.16
acres. Debu Singh, in the capacity of legal heir of Helumani
Debya (one of the daughters of Khanju Kumari), sold 12 acres of
land through two separate registered sale deed no.8103 and 8104
dated 1.6.1964 to Shyamal Kumar Mukherjee [representative of
the defendant no.1]. There is no dispute with respect to this
portion of the property.
2025:JHHC:31082
ii. It was the case of the plaintiff that rest of the land i.e. 17 acres
16 decimals (schedule B property) is still in name and title of
Debu Singh and it has been specifically alleged in the plaint that
in the 1st Week of March, 2004 the defendant captured the land
which was in the possession of the plaintiffs. On the other hand,
the defendant claimed the entire schedule A property (including
schedule B property) through sale deeds and lease deed as
contained in exhibit C to C/4 and Ext.-D and the defendant
claimed that after purchase of the land they constructed different
quarters, play ground on the land and they are utilizing the land
for their own purpose.
iii. The oral evidences have been considered. It has been recorded
as under: -
"Plaintiff witness No.1 namely Guzarlal Bauri has also
supported the contention of the plaintiff in Paras 2, 5 and
10 of his examination in chief but in Para-16 of cross
examination, this witness says that on the disputed land
there are quarters of the company and in Para-17 he
specifically says that those quarters are 40 years old.
P.W.-2 namely Durga Das Ojha has also supported the
contention of the plaintiff in Para 2 & 4 of the plaint but
in Para-17 of the cross-examination, this witness says
that the defendant encroached the land of the plaintiffs in
the night of 31.1.2008 but the plaintiff has stated in the
plaint that the defendant had encroached the land of the
plaintiff in the 1st Week of March,2004. P.W.-3 namely
Khagen Paramanik has supported the case of the
plaintiffs in Para-2 and Para-6 of examination in chief
but in Para-3 of the cross-examination, he says that the
disputed land is in the possession of Shyam Narayan
Singh whereas the plaintiffs in their pleadings have
stated that the disputed land is in the possession of the
defendant. P.W.-4 Pralahad Gorai while supporting the
case of the plaintiff in para-8 of examination in chief has
stated that the plaintiffs are in possession of rest land
which is 17 acres 16 decimals and in Para-16 of the
cross-examination, this witness has also supported the
fact that even today the plaintiffs are in possession of the
land. Similarly, P.W.-5 Shyam Narayan Singh has in
Para-7 of his cross-examination says that he made
2025:JHHC:31082
correspondence with defendant company for his service
in lieu of the land which has been purchased by the
company and Para-11 of the examination in chief also
this witness admits that the defendant company has
purchased 12 acres of land from his grandfather namely
Debu Singh and in the month of March,2004 the
defendant encroached certain portion of schedule B land.
But surprisingly enough this witness in Para-13 of
examination in chief has stated that on 17 acres 16
decimals of land he is exercising his possession whereas
in the plaint this witness who is plaintiff No.2 has stated
that defendant company has encroached the land
mentioned in schedule B of the plaint in the 1 st Week of
March, 2004.
iv. In the light of oral evidences of the plaintiffs, it is clear that the
land having an area of 29 acres 16 decimals of Khata No.30, Plot
No.621 situated in Mouja Parasbania(158) was in the name of
raiyyat Khanju Kumari and the plaintiffs are claiming the land i.e.
17 acres 16 decimals after deducting 12 acres of land which has
been claimed to be sold by the grandfather of the plaintiff Shri
Shyam Narayan Singh to Shyamal Kumar Mukherjee, which has
been described in schedule B of the plaint which the plaintiff says
that the defendant company has encroached the schedule B land,
the plaintiffs are claiming the land on the basis that Khanju
Kumari had only one daughter namely Helumani Debya and after
the death of Khanju Kumari, Helumani Debya became the owner
of the land and after the death of Helumani Debya her only son
namely Debu Singh became the owner of the land and the
plaintiffs are presently claiming the land in the capacity of legal
heirs of Debu Singh and the lineal descendants of Khanju Kumari.
v. But the documentary evidences filed on behalf of both the sides
are stating a different story. As per the pleadings and oral
evidences of the witnesses produced and examined on behalf of
the plaintiffs land pertaining to Khata No.30, Plot No.621 of
Mouja Parasbania was under the rayyat Khanju Kumari which is
confirmed by Ext.-7 also which is khatiyan of Khata No.30, Plot
2025:JHHC:31082
No.421, Area 29 acres 16 decimals and the plaintiffs in the
capacity of lineal descendants as well as legal heirs of Khanju
Kumari inherited the property. But Ext.-E, which is photo-copy of
the plaint of title partition suit no.307/15, Ext.-F which is certified
copy of W/S filed on behalf of the defendant Nos.1, 4 & 5 in
Title(P) Suit No.307/15, Exhibit No.14 which is certified copy of
registered deed of gift No.1500 dated 18.4.1939 and Ext.-X which
is xerox copy of permanent deed of settlement given by Khanju
Kumari to Helumani Debya are stating different stories. Ext.-E
which is plaint of title partition suit no.307/15 shows that in this
partition suit the plaintiff of title suit no.126/04 are defendant
Nos.1,2,3,4 & 5 and this suit is for partition of the land situated in
Mouja Parasbania No.158, Khata No.28,29 and 30. The schedule
of partition suit no.307/15 clearly shows that the land measuring
29.61 acres of khata no.30, plot no.621 of mouja Parasbania has
also been included in the schedule A of the plaint in which the
plaintiff of title partition suit no.307/15 are seeking the partition
against the many defendants including the plaintiffs of Title Suit
no.126/04. The plaintiffs of Title Suit No.126/04 have filed written
statement in title partition suit no.307/15 which has been marked
as Ext.-F and in Para-12 of this Ext.-F this written statement filed
on behalf of the defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5. It has been stated that
the recorded raiyyat Khanju Kumari gifted land measuring 29
acres 16 decimals in Plot No.621 pertaining to Khata No.30 of
Mouja Parasbania No.158 by virtue of registered gift deed dated
19.6.1935 to Helumani Debya W/o Shri Shanti Ram Singh and in
this way Helumani Debya came in possession of the said property.
Further it has been stated that Helumani Debya has four
daughters and all the daughters gifted the land pertaining to
Khata Nos.28 & 31 of Mouja Parasbania to Debrata Singh vide
registered gift no.1500 dated 18.4.1939 and that registered gift
deed has been marked as Ext.-14 on behalf of the plaintiff. But
Title Suit No.126/04 is mainly concerned with the land bearing
Khata No.30, Plot No.621, measuring 29 acres 26 decimals about
2025:JHHC:31082
this land. Ext.-X which is permanent lease deed executed by
Khanju Kumari in favour of the Helumani Debya is the most
important document. Although these documents has been marked
Ext-X for identification yet it contains some concrete materials
which are helpful in arriving at the just decision of this suit hence
this Ext-X is being taken into consideration. After perusal of Ext.-
X, though this document has been marked as Ext.-X only for the
purpose of identification but without appreciation this document
and without taking this document taking into consideration it is
not possible to arrive at the just decision of the suit, yet I do not
restrain myself from discussing this document.
vi. Ext.-7 which is C.S. Record of Rights relating to Khata No.30 Plot
No.621 measuring 29 acres 16 decimals of Mouja Parasbania
revealed that Khanju Kumari is the recorded raiyyat. Ext.-X
reveals the fact that the land mentioning Ext.-7 which is record of
rights has been given to Helumani Debya by recorded raiyyat
Khanju Kumari through deed of lease and viewed in this
perspective the status of Helumani Debya is that of a dar-raiyyat.
Nowhere the right of the dar-raiyyat is transferable or heritable.
vii. In support of their title the plaintiffs have filed a rent receipt
which has been exhibited as Ext.-4. This rent receipt stands in the
name of Khanju Kumari and it has been issued on 21.8.2008 and
after the institution of this suit. If Ext.-X is taken as true, the rent
receipt should not be in the name of Khanju Kumari; it should be
either in the name of the plaintiffs or at best in the name of
Debbrat Singh. Moreover, this document has been created after
institution of the suit, hence, it cannot been relied upon. Apart
from Ext.-4, Ext.-7 and Ext.-X the plaintiffs have not produced any
documents in support of their title neither the plaintiffs are
claiming the land on the basis of adverse possession.
viii. Quite contrary to this claim of the plaintiffs the defendant are
claiming the land on the basis of certain sale deeds and one lease
deed. These documents have nowhere been challenged by the
plaintiffs. Moreover, the defendants have acted upon the sale
2025:JHHC:31082
deeds and lease deed by acquiring possession over the land. This
fact is also accentuated by the pleadings of the plaintiffs where
they say that in the 1st Week of March, 2004 the defendants
encroached their land. This land of the plaintiffs clearly show that
the defendants are in possession of the land.
ix. The plaintiffs have suppressed the fact by stating that Khanju
Kumari had only one daughter namely Helumani Debya but after
institution of Title (Partition) Suit no.307/15 when the plaintiffs
saw that there is no way to escape, they admitted the truth by
accepting the fact in the written statement that Helumani Debya
was not the only one daughter of Khanju Kumari.
x. The reply given by the plaintiffs by way of recitals itself
contradicts the claim of the plaintiffs because in the reply by way
of recital the plaintiffs claim that Khanju Kumari had given a
registered lease deed in favour of Helumani Debya. Viewed in this
perspective the status of Helumani Debya is that of the dar-raiyyat
of Khanju Kumari and it is well settled principle of law that the
right of dar-raiyyat is neither transferable nor heritable. On this
score also the claim of the plaintiffs is not proved.
xi. The plaintiffs are not claiming their title on the basis of adverse
possession.
xii. The fact that the defendants have purchased the land through
different means and acted upon it by taking possession of the land
which is confirmed by the pleadings of the plaint.
xiii. The plaintiffs have failed to prove their right, title and interest
over the land mentioned in schedule A of the plaint which is plot
No.621, Khata No.30, Area 29 acres 16 decimals of Mouja
Parasbania(No.158).
xiv. Hence, Issue No.4 i.e. is the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree for
declaration of right, title an ownership over the plaint schedule B
land measuring 17 acres 16 decimals of land which is part of
schedule A land is decided against the plaintiff because the
plaintiff has failed in proving their right, title and interest over the
land mentioned in schedule A of the plaint. Since the plaintiffs
2025:JHHC:31082
have failed to justify and prove their right over schedule A land,
no question of exercising right, title and interest of the plaintiffs
over schedule B land arises hence the plaintiffs are not entitled for
a decree for recovery of possession of the land mentioned in
schedule-B of the plaint. So Issue no. 5 which is "Is the plaintiff
entitled for a decree for recovery of possession has been schedule
B land by his removal of structures and erection thereon" is also
decided against the plaintiffs."
19. The learned 1st appellate court has framed the following issues
for consideration: -
I. Whether the findings of the court below that suit land was
Dar Raiyati land of Helumani Debya is correct?
II. Whether the appellants/plaintiffs have right, title and
interest over the suit land and they are entitled to get its
vacant possession after vacating the defendants from there?
III. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the court below
is erroneous and liable to be set aside?
20. The point of determination no. I was decided in favour of the
plaintiffs as the point regarding dar-raiyat was beyond the pleadings of
the parties and that there was no need to do so because Helumani
Debya was daughter of Khanju Kumari. The finding that the suit land
was Dar Raiyati land of Helumani Debya was set-aside.
21. The point of determination no. II was decided against the
plaintiffs and the salient findings are as follows:-
a) As per the case of the plaintiffs C.S plot no. 621 under khata
no. 30 was Raiyati land. Smt. Khanju Kumari wife of late
Juran Deb who was in possession thereof and after her death
the land was inherited and possessed by her only daughter
Helumani Debya, who is grand-mother of the plaintiff no. 1.
b) A gift deed (Ext. 14) was executed by Nuna Kumari, Chunki
Kumari and Manchuran Kumari, all daughters of late Juran
Deo in favour of Debrat Singh. This document has been
brought on the record by the plaintiffs. Perusal of this
document clearly indicates that Khanju Kumari who is wife of
late Juran Deo had other daughters also apart from Helumani
Debya and this submission of the plaintiffs is palpably false
that Helumani Debya was only daughter of Khanju Kumari
2025:JHHC:31082
and after death of Helumani Debya her son Debrat Singh was
in possession of the land in question.
c) Vide sale deeds dated 8103 and 8104 dated 1.6.1964 (Ext. 9
and 9/1), he sold twelve acres of land to one Shyamal Kumar
Mukherjee, nominee of defendant no. 1 who later on built
quarters etc. thereon. In this regard I would like see that sale
deeds executed by Debrat Singh in favour of Shyamal Kumar
Mukherjee which are Ext. 9 and 9/1. Hindi version of both
deeds have been filed by the appellants which are on the case
record. Perusal of para no. 5 of these deeds indicates that this
Debrat Singh had only twelve acres of land in his possession
in plot no. 621. By both the deeds six acres of land were
transferred by Debrat Singh in favour of Shyamal Kumar
Mukherjee, representative of defendant no. 1.
d) From perusal of the documents filed by the defendants (Ext. C
series) it is manifest that one Baruni Mahatain had purchased
twenty two bighas of land in plot no. 621 on 12.10.1957 and
she sold this twenty two bighas of land through two deeds
bearing no. 1856 and 1857 dated 14.2.1964 in the name of
Durga Das Chatterjee, representative of the company and vide
this two deeds respondents/defendants purchased twenty two
bighas of land in this plot no. 621. As per the case of the
defendants, the defendant company purchased two acres of
land vide sale deed no. 14542 and 1.66 acres of land vide sale
deed No. 14543. 0.66. decimal of land vide deed no. 14543
dated 12.11.1963 in the name of its representative D.D.
Chatterjee. Subsequently land in question was released in
favour of the company. It is further case of the
respondents/defendants that seven acres of land of plot no.
621 was given to the respondents/defendants by F.C.I. on the
basis of the lease agreement executed on 2.2.1972. It is true
that if the pleading of the respondents/defendants are
considered regarding acquisition of land, it appears more
than 29 acres and 16 decimals of land they have purchased in
this plot while the total area of plot no. 621 is 29 acres and 16
decimals only but it is settled principle of law that in civil
proceeding parties have to stand on their own leg they cannot
take advantage of latches and lacuna of their adversary.
e) As per the plaint it is the case of the appellants/plaintiffs that
in course of establishment of Chasnala Project lands of
various persons were acquired by private as well as through
L.A acquisition proceeding and in course of agitation the
company agreed to provide employment to one of the family
members of the land losers. The plaintiff also went on writing
2025:JHHC:31082
various letters to the defendants company for providing
employment and in response to letter dated 23.12.1998 by
plaintiff no. 2 the C.P.O (C) of defendant no. 1 by his letter
denied having acquired any such land from the plaintiff's
family or providing any employment to the plaintiffs.
f) Thereafter on 28.2.2002 legal notice was served to the
respondents/defendants through their lawyer Goutam Kumar
Banerjee demanding vacation of plot no. 621 belonging to the
plaintiffs and lawyer Sri B.P. Choudhary again replied dated
11.3.2002 have claimed purchase of only 12 acres of land in
plot no. 621 from the plaintiffs but none the less denied to
provide any employment to the family members of the plaintiff
and directed not to request in that respect in future.............
As mentioned above in para no. 8 of the plaint it is written that
since first week of March, 2004 defendant company have
encroached the other portion of the schedule 'B' land by over
night by erecting structures.
The exact date of dispossession has not been given. More
over there are contradictions in the pleading of the plaintiffs
as whether before 28.2.2002 they were dispossessed by the
defendant company or since 1st March, 2004 defendant
company have encroached remaining land of plot no. 621
belonging to the plaintiffs. In the evidence it has come that on
these lands there are several structures and obviously such
structures cannot be erected over night. It has been admitted
by the witnesses that these structures are very old structures.
It is quite surprising that some of the witnesses examined on
behalf of the plaintiffs have stated that the lands in question
are in possession of the plaintiffs they are growing crop over
those lands.
g) It has been pleaded on behalf of the plaintiffs that ancestors of
the plaintiffs have sold twelve acres of land in favour of the
respondent company and so far as the remaining land
measuring an area of 17.16 acres is concerned the plaintiffs
are paying rent to the State Government and rent receipt in
this regard has been filed which is Ext. 5. The plaintiffs have
also filed one letter issued by the Circle Officer, Baliapur
addressed to the In-charge, District Public Grievance Cell.
Dhanbad in which it has been mentioned that defendant
company has converted five acres of cultivable land in a field.
In this letter it is also written that mutation of twelve acres of
land has been allowed in favour of the company which the
company had purchased from Debu Singh vide sale deed nos.
8103 and 8104. This letter is Ext. 5. The plaintiffs have also
2025:JHHC:31082
filed one letter issued by the revenue Karmachari addressed to
the Circle Officer, Baliapur in which it is written that fore-
father of the plaintiffs have sold twelve acres of land of khata
no. 621 to the defendant company and deducting twelve acres
of land remaining seventeen acres of land is in possession of
the plaintiffs and defendant company has illegally converted
five acres of cultivable land in a field. The appellants/plaintiffs
have also filed one Khatiyan which is Ext. 7. According to the
learned counsel for the respondents/defendants it is not a
khatiyan rather it is Khewat but just perusal of it indicates that
it is Khatiyan. The appellants/plaintiffs have also filed
certified copy of the order passed in Mutation Case No.
78/1983-1984 by which the mutation of twelve acres of land
purchased by the defendant company was allowed in their
favour. It is apparent that rent receipt (Ext. 4) which has been
filed by the appellants/plaintiffs has been issued on 21.8.2008.
So far as the Ext. 5 and 6 are concerned, certainly the report
has been submitted by the revenue Karmachari as well as the
Circle Officer, indicates that only twelve acres of land of
khata no. 30 has been sold in favour of the
respondents/defendants. But contrary to this when I peruse the
documents filed by the respondents/defendants, I find that
apart from twelve acres of land which the respondent
company has purchased from Debu Singh they have
purchased other lands of plot no. 621 from other person
through sale deeds. The defendant company has taken on
lease seven acres of land from Fertilizer Corporation of India
Limited, Sindri Unit as per the lease agreement executed by
the company. This document is Ext. D. Perusal of this
document indicates that on 7.2.1972 this document has been
executed by F.C.I Sindri Unit. This land was acquired in the
year 1963 vide L.A proceeding after due notification bearing
no. B/L-11-DHAN/37/56-2087-R, dated 9.3.1957 under the
provision of L.A Act 1895 published in Bihar Gazette Page-
175-776 II on 13.3.1957. It is manifest that after filing of this
Title Suit the appellants/plaintiffs have procured the
documents bearing no. Ext. 4, 5, 6, 11, 12 and 13. It is true
that prayer was made by the defendants company for local
inspection of the suit land but it was objected by the plaintiffs
rather the plaintiffs filed a petition before the Public
Grievance Cell, Dhanbad and in view of that petition report
was called for from the Circle Officer, Baliapur Anchal and
with regard to this petition Ext. 5 and 6 are relevant. I find
that original letter of the Circle Officer has been brought on
2025:JHHC:31082
the record by the plaintiffs while in my view this letter should
have been gone to the in-charge of Public Grievance Cell,
Dhanbad. Moreover the petition filed by appellants/plaintiffs
before Public Grievance Cell has not been brought on the
record. It is also manifest that while submitting such report no
opportunity was given by the authority concern to the
defendants to place their defence. It appears that report has
been submitted by Baliapur Anchal ex-parte without giving
any opportunity to the defendant company to be heard. At the
cost of repetition I would like to mention here that during trial
of Title Suit No. 126/2004, these documents were obtained and
were filed before the court below. These documents do not
appear to be very authentic documents. Moreover it is settled
principle of law that revenue record is not a document of title.
................
h) The respondents/defendants have acquired the land through
lease deed as well as different deeds executed by other land
owners apart from twelve acres of land which they have
purchased from ancestors of the plaintiff namely Debu Singh.
These sale deeds are still effective and no step has been taken
by the appellants/plaintiffs to get these sale deeds declared
null and void, sham and not operative. The sale deed is
certainly deed of title and on the basis of such deed the
respondents/defendants are claiming title over the land in
question.
i) ................ Perusal of lease deed (Ext. D) indicates that this
is a registered lease deed executed in the year 1971-72 and in
the page no. 2 of this deed there is reference of land
acquisition proceeding by which the land was acquired and
given to the F.C.I. It is surprising that Land Acquisition
Office, Dhanbad without perusing its own register maintained
in the office, called for an information from F.C.I which is
closed now a days. The Land Acquisition Office given
information to the appellants/plaintiffs. The deed in question is
genuine documents and other sale deeds on the basis of which
respondents/defendants are claiming remaining portion of
land of plot no. 621 appears to be genuine documents.
Moreover no competent court has set aside these documents.
Perusal of C.C of plaint of Title Suit No. 307/2015 (Ext. E)
indicates that with respect to the land in question Manoj
Kumar Singh and others have brought partition suit against
the appellants/plaintiffs of the present Title Appeal. It prima-
facie indicates that appellants/plaintiffs are not title holder of
the land in question.
2025:JHHC:31082
j) From perusal of the plaint it is manifest that at the first place
the appellants/plaintiffs took step to get job in the defendant
company by issuing letter dated 23.12.1998 and when
respondent company refused to oblige them then pleader's
notice dated 18.2.2002 was issued and when reply letter dated
11.3.2002 was received by them, they instituted the present
case for declaration of title and eviction of the
respondent/company from the suit land. It appears that with
some ulterior motive and not with pious intention the present
suit has been brought by the appellants/plaintiffs against the
respondents/defendants.
k) The plaintiffs have no right, title and interest over the suit and
they are not entitled to get vacant possession of this land
dispossessing the defendant from there. In the facts and
circumstances issue no. II was decided in favour of the
defendants.
22. This court finds that the specific case of the plaintiff was that
they were dispossessed from the suit property (schedule B) in the 1st
week of March 2004 and the plaintiffs were seeking recovery of
possession of the said property in the suit and in the evidence it has
come that as per legal notice dated 28.02.2002 the plaintiffs were
already dispossessed from the suit property (schedule B) and they
were claiming employment from the defendant. The argument of the
appellants-plaintiffs that the plaintiffs were in possession of the
remaining area i.e. 17.16 acres of land prior to 31.01.2008 and they
were dispossessed only on 31.01.2008 by using bull dozer is in
complete variance with their case in the suit and the learned court has
taken into consideration the conflicting evidence of the plaintiffs in
connection with their date of dispossession. Though the learned trial
court has not considered in details the aforesaid oral evidences
regarding the continued possession of the plaintiffs till 31.01.2008, but
the learned trial court has fully recorded and considered the oral and
also documentary evidences in this regard and have recorded the
inconsistencies in the evidence and the claim of the plaintiffs with
regard to the date of dispossession. The learned 1st appellate court has
recorded that it has been admitted by the witnesses that there are very
2025:JHHC:31082
old structures over the property and also recorded that it is quite
surprising that some of the witnesses examined on behalf of the
plaintiffs have stated that the lands in question are in possession of the
plaintiffs they are growing crop over those lands.
23. This court also finds that the learned 1st appellate court had also
considered the documentary evidences with regard to the date of
dispossession on 31.01.2008 and has recorded that it is manifest that
after filing of this Title Suit the appellants/plaintiffs have procured the
documents bearing no. Ext. 4, 5, 6, 11, 12 and 13 and it is also true
that prayer was made by the defendants company for local inspection
of the suit land, but it was objected by the plaintiffs rather the
plaintiffs filed a petition before the Public Grievance Cell, Dhanbad
and in view of that petition report was called for from the Circle
Officer, Baliapur Anchal and also recorded that the petition filed by
plaintiffs before Public Grievance Cell has not been brought on the
record. The learned court also recorded that while submitting the
report, no opportunity was given by the authority concerned to the
defendants to place their defence. The learned 1st appellate court
recorded that the report submitted by Baliapur Anchal was ex-parte
and without giving any opportunity to the defendant company to be
heard. The learned 1st appellate court recorded that during trial of
present Title Suit No. 126/2004, these documents were obtained and
were filed before the court below and observed that these documents
do not appear to be very authentic documents and moreover it is
settled principle of law that revenue record is not a document of title.
The learned 1st appellate court held that exact date of dispossession
has not been given and more over there are contradictions in the
pleading of the plaintiffs as whether before 28.2.2002 they were
dispossessed by the defendant company or since 1 st March, 2004
defendant company have encroached remaining land of plot no. 621
belonging to the plaintiffs. In the evidence, it has come that on these
lands there are several structures and obviously such structures cannot
be erected overnight. It has been admitted by the witnesses that these
2025:JHHC:31082
structures are very old structures and also recorded that it is quite
surprising that some of the witnesses examined on behalf of the
plaintiffs have stated that the lands in question are in possession of the
plaintiffs they are growing crop over those lands.
24. The learned 1st appellate court also recorded that the defendants
have acquired the land through lease deed as well as different deeds
executed by other land owners apart from twelve acres of land which
they have purchased from ancestors of the plaintiff namely Debu
Singh. These sale deeds are still effective and no step has been taken
by the plaintiffs to get these sale deeds declared null and void, sham
and not operative.
25. Having gone through the impugned judgements, this Court
finds that the judgements of both the courts are well reasoned and
there is no perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidences placed
on record. This Court is of the considered view that no substantial
question of law is involved in this case and accordingly this second
appeal is hereby dismissed.
26. Pending, interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not
pressed.
27. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the courts
concerned through "FAX/e-mail".
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
08.10.2025
Rakesh/-
Uploaded on 10th October, 2025
