Adverse possession can be acquired over land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, provided that the ingredients of adverse possession are satisfied.

P.K.Deb, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 16.11.1978 passed by the then Second Additional District Judge, Jamshedpur, in Title Appeal No. 1 of 1977 confirming the judgment of dismissal of Title Suit No. 162/265 of 1971-76 dated 29.11.1976 passed by the Additional Munsif, Jamshedpur.

2. While admitting this appeal on 26.11.1980, the following substantial questions of law were formulated:-

(i) Whether the plea of adverse possession to acquire title can be allowed upon a land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act?

(ii) Whether a record of rights not finally published can be considered for deciding title?

3. The facts of the case run as follows.:

The plaintiff-appellant Company filed the above-mentioned suit before the Additional Munsif, Jamshedpur, for declaration of title and recovery of possession and also for mesne profit in respect of R.S. Plot No. 189 and a portion of Plot No. 192 measuring 2.77 acres of land appertaining to Khata Nos. 13 and 77 situate in Mouza Sonari in the town of Jamshedupr, details of which were given in Schedule A at the foot of the plaint. The allegation of the plaintiff was that the plain tiff-Company become the owner or the suit land as part and parcel of the land acquired by the then Provincial Government under the Land Acquisition Act (for short the Act). It was stated that title and possession of the land was conveyed and delivered to the plaintiff-Company under the provisions of the said Act. The plaintiff.remained in possession of the land all through out, but at the revisional survey in 1937, the land in Plot No. 189 was found in possession of one Chaitan Khewat and the said land stood recorded in his name and his possession was recorded under Khata No. 30. When that Chaitan Khewat could not pay rent, then rent suit was filed against him and for non-payment of rent, the land was sold in auction in Execution Case No. 6 (c) of 1945-46 and the plaintiff-Company purchased the same and took delivery of possession on the basis of that execution case in auction sale.

4. The plaintiffs further case is that it remained in possession after that but the land remained Patti and follow and taking advantage of the situation, the present defendant trespassed into the suit land on 19.8.1967 and unlawfully ploughed the same despite protest on the part of the plaintiff-Company and they remained in wrong occupation of the same, hence the present suit was filed.

5. The defendant No. 2 alone contested the suit and had contended inter alia in the written statement that the plaintiff has no cause of action in the suit that the suit is not maintainable and is barred by limitation as the plaintiff was never in possession within 12 years prior from the date of the suit. The tenure interest in agricultural land was vested in the State of Bihar in 1964 and so the plaintiff has no land in its khas possession. It is also contended that the suit is barred by the non-joinder of the necessary party and that defendant No. 1 has been un-necessarily impleaded as party in the suit. The map filed along with, the plaint of the suit is incorrect and the suit land is never acquired land of the plaintiff and it was never in his possession. The defendant also denied the socalled delivery of possession in the same of the plaintiff-Company and even if that be so, the plaintiff never exercised possession over the suit land. In the contention of real facts of the written statement, the defendant contended that previously the suit land were Patit land and the father of the defendant Radha Mahto came in possession of the land about 25-26 years ago and reclaimed portion of the land by the process of Kor-Kar and converted into valuable paddy lands and also constructed residential houses over that portion about 25 years ago. The lands in and around the residential portion were used as bari land by growing vegetables and as such the defendants father acquired occupancy right by Kor-Kar under Se