SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Pat) 484

PATNA HIGH COURT
Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.
Gobind Mohan Mishra
Versus
State Of Bihar
FIRST APPEAL No. 797 of 1979
Title Suit No. 243 of 1967
Decided On : MARCH 31, 2011

Headnote:

vesting - property title - Darbhanga Improvement Trust Act of 1934 - Section 35 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act - The court found that the suit land was purchased through a registered sale deed by Maharajadhiraja from Darbhanga Improvement Trust, and that the plaintiffs were in Khas possession of the suit land on the date of vesting and continued to be in possession thereafter. The court also found that the suit land never vested in the State of Bihar, and that the suit was not barred under Section 35 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction over a property, claiming that the late Maharajadhiraja, Darbhanga was the owner of the suit property, which was purchased from the Darbhanga Improvement Trust. The defendants contested the suit, claiming that the suit land was acquired by the trust and subsequently vested in the State of Bihar.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the plaintiffs had proved their subsisting title and possession over the suit property, and that the property never vested in the State of Bihar. The court also held that the suit was not barred under Section 35 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act.

Issues: The issues framed by the court included the maintainability of the suit, the cause of action and right to the suit, the applicability of Section 35 of the B.L.R. Act, the validity of the plaintiffs' title over the suit land, and the entitlement of the plaintiffs to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the plaintiffs' proof of purchase and possession of the suit land, the lack of evidence supporting the defendants' claim of vesting in the State of Bihar, and the inapplicability of Section 35 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act to the relief sought by the plaintiffs.

Final Decision: The first appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment and decree were set aside, and the plaintiffs' suit was decreed in their favor. The court held that the suit land never vested in the State of Bihar and that the suit was not barred under Section 35 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act.

JUDGEMENT

Mungeshwar, J.

1. The plaintiffs have filed this appeal challenging the Sahoo, J. judgment and decree dated 04.08.1979 passed by Sri Lala Anjani Kumar Sinha, the learned 4th Additional Subordinate Judge, Darbhanga in Title Suit No. 243 of 1967 dismissing the plaintiffs-appellants suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs-appellants.

2. The plaintiffs-appellants claimed the aforesaid relief on allegation that late Maharajadhiraja, Darbhanga was the owner of the suit property consisting of various municipal plots which is situated to the south east of tank known as Harahi tank and west of Darbhanga Railway Station. All the said plots have been amalgamated into one plot. Most of the plots forming the block previously were owned by different tenants under various Maliks of the Tauji. Subsequently, the Darbhanga Improvement Trust constituted under the Darbhanga Improvement Trust Act of 1934 under an Improvement Acquisition Scheme acquired the aforesaid plots of land in the year 1936 and came in possession. On 1.11.1936 late Maharajadhiraja, Darbhanga purchased the suit land from the Improvement Trust for a consideration of Rs.2000/- by a registered sale deed. In the said sale deed the suit land has been described as one block. After purchase late Maharajadhiraja came in possession and continued in possession thereof. He leveled the land at huge cost and brought under his Khas cultivation and on behalf of him several plants, flowers and vegetables were being grown. Thereafter, in 1941 the suit land was enclosed by a boundary wall constructed in three sides i.e. east, north and south. In the west, the tank is situated. After obtaining due permission from the municipality the said boundary wall was constructed and three feet wide road was left towards the east of the compound wall. Late Maharajadhiraja continued in possession thereof by growing vegetables and flowers and also after vesting of Estate of Raj Darbhanga in 1951 he continued in possession thereof. Subsequently, an application was filed for fixation of rent for the said land in the year 1960 which remained un-disposed of. During the life time of Maharajadhiraja there was a proposal for construction of houses but Maharajadhiraja died and the plaintiffs assume the charge of administration of the Estate of Raj Darbhanga and took of the charge of construction of buildings on the suit land after sanctioned of the plan.

3. The further case of the plaintiffs is that the then D.M. personally gave instruction to stop the construction of buildings and directed the Additional Collector to make inquiry and in course of the said inquiry Anchal Adhikari issued notice to the plaintiffs calling upon him to produce evidence of title. The plaintiffs produced the documents of title and the Anchal Adhikari submitted his report but no order was passed. The plaintiffs filed several petition before the authority and also before the Government and thereafter order was passed holding that the land belong to the Government and action would be taken under Public Land Encroachment Act.

4. The further case is that the land never vested in the State of Bihar. Maharajadhiraja was in cultivating possession of the land from before and at the time of vesting of State and, therefore, under the B.L.R. Act it will be deemed to have been settled with the Maharajadhiraja of Darbhanga and the State of Bihar is only entitled to a fair rent in respect of the same. To have an amicable settlement the plaintiffs filed a petition before the Government proposing that without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiffs the Government may agree to the settlement of the land with the plaintiffs at a fair rate of rent and thereafter subsequently, he was directed to file the said application before the Collector, Darbhanga. As directed by the Government the plaintiffs filed application for settlement of dispu






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top