Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
R. S. BINDRA, J.
Dinesh Chandra Sardar and others -Appellant
Versus
Harendra Biswas -Respondent
Second Appeal No.200 of 1970
Decided On : 14-07-1972
LAND SETTLEMENT - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - ASSAM LAND AND REVENUE REGULATION, 1886, SECTION 154(1)(A) - SUBSISTING RIGHT TO LAND - ANNUAL PATTA - RENEWAL - CLAUSE 3 OF THE PATTA - RELINQUISHMENT OF LAND - TERMINATION OF RIGHTS - BABUR ALI V. RAMGOPAL CHAUDHURY (ILR 1957 ASSAM 437) - MD. MASUM V. STATE OF ASSAM (1959 ASSAM LR 239).
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, as heirs of their father, claimed khas possession of land on declaration of their title thereto, alleging that the defendant took advantage of their minority to secure possession in 1960. The defendant resisted, asserting settlement of the land with him, cancellation of the plaintiffs' father's patta, and issuance of an annual patta in his favor. The trial court decreed for the plaintiffs, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the suit was not maintainable as it challenged the settlement.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court correctly held that the suit was not maintainable in the Civil Court under Section 154(1)(a) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, which bars Civil Court jurisdiction in questions of settlement validity or effect. The plaintiffs failed to prove a subsisting right to the land, as the latest patta was in the defendant's name. Clause 3 of the patta provided for renewal unless notice of non-renewal was given, but this did not confer a right in the land itself. The plaintiffs' father had voluntarily surrendered possession and requested cancellation of his patta, terminating their rights.
Issues: 1. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit challenging the settlement of land made with the defendant? 2. Whether the plaintiffs have a subsisting title in the suit land?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 154(1)(a) of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, bars Civil Court jurisdiction in questions of settlement validity or effect. 2. A patta holder has no right in the land itself, only a right to get the patta renewed. Relinquishment of the land terminates the patta holder's rights, even without notice under Clause 3 of the patta.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
A patta holder's rights are limited to the renewal of the patta; they do not have an inherent right in the land itself. Relinquishment of the land by the patta holder terminates their rights, even without formal notice under Clause 3 of the patta (!) (!) .
The jurisdiction of civil courts is barred in questions regarding the validity or effect of land settlement under the relevant land regulation, which means disputes challenging the settlement process are not maintainable in civil courts (!) .
A patta issued in favor of an individual confers no permanent proprietary right; it merely grants a right to renewal. The absence of a renewal notice or cancellation of the patta results in the termination of the patta holder’s rights in the land (!) (!) .
If a patta holder voluntarily relinquishes possession or the land is otherwise surrendered, their rights in the land cease, regardless of whether formal notice has been given (!) (!) .
The latest valid patta in the case was held by the defendant, not the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' claim to subsisting rights was not supported by evidence of a current valid patta or title, and their rights were deemed to have terminated upon relinquishment or cancellation (!) (!) (!) .
The defendant's possession and the issuance of a patta in their favor were accepted as conclusive evidence of their current rights to the land, and the plaintiffs' claim to enforce rights through civil litigation was rejected (!) (!) .
The interpretation of procedural rules, such as Rule 5 of Order VIII of the Civil Procedure Code, indicates that allegations not specifically denied are deemed admitted, but in this case, the defendant explicitly denied the plaintiffs' claims and did not admit to their title or rights (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that a claim based solely on the issuance of a patta does not establish a subsisting right or ownership in the land, especially if the patta has been canceled or relinquished (!) (!) .
The final decision dismissed the appeal, affirming that the defendant's rights were valid due to possession and issuance of the patta, and the plaintiffs' claim was barred by their lack of current subsisting rights (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
JUDGMENT:- This second appeal by the plaintiffs which raises some interesting questions of law is directed against the decree dated 30th May, 1970, of the Assistant District Judge, Dibrugarh, by which the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed on reversing the decree of the trial Court made in their favour.
2. The case of the plaintiffs was that the land in dispute measuring 28 bighas 2 kathas 14 lechas was firstly held by their father Sambhunath on annual patta and on his death it was settled in their favour as heirs of Sambhunath. Taking advantage of the fact that they (the plaintiffs) were minors, the defendant managed to secure possession of the land in the year 1960. When the plaintiffs grew up in years and learnt about their rights in the land they approached the defendant for restoring possession of the land to them but the defendant turned back on their legitimate demand. Having been left with no alternative they filed the suit claiming khas possession of the land on declaration of their title thereto.
3. The suit was resisted by the defendant who traversed the allegations of fact made by the plaintiffs and pleaded that the suit was not maintainable inasmuch as it was, practically speaking, a suit for challenging the settlement of the land made with him and that such settlement was immune from challenge in Civil Court. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs father had made over khas possession of the land to him on 23-9-59 and then he (the plaintiffs father) made a petition to the Sub-deputy Collector praying that the patta of the land be issued in favour of the defendant. The Sub-deputy Collector, the defendant alleged further, cancelled the patta in favour of the plaintiffs father, converted the land into khas ownership of the Government, and thereafter he issued annual patta in favour of the defendant. The defendant asserted that he had been in continuous possession of the land for a long number of years without any break.
The trial Court settled the following issues:
(1) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit?
(2) Whether the suit land was the property of the deceased father of the plaintiffs?
(3) Whether the plaintiffs have any subsisting title in the suit land?
(4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for ejectment of the defendant?
(5) What other reliefs are the plaintiffs entitled to?
Under issue No.1 the trial Court held that on the basis of the pleadings adopted by the defendant the latter must be deemed to have admitted in terms of Rule 5, Order VIII, Civil Procedure Code, that the patta of the suit land currently stands in the name of the plaintiffs and that as such the plaintiffs can legitimately come to the Civil Court for declaration of their title to the land. Issues Nos.2, 3 and 4 were also found in favour of the plaintiffs with the consequence that their suit was decreed with costs.
4. On appeal by the defendant the learned Assistant District Judge set aside the finding of the trial Court that the defendant must be deemed to have admitted the plaintiffs title in the land on the date of the suit, and then held, on assessment of the material on record, that it was the defendant, and not the plaintiffs, who at present have lease-hold right in the land. Other distinct findings recorded by the Assistant District Judge were that the annual patta of the land at present is in favour of the defendant and that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they have subsisting title in the land. Another finding returned by the first appellate Court was that the plaintiffs have no right to challenge in Civil Court the settlement of the land made in favour of the defendant.
5. The plaintiffs having felt aggrieved with the findings recorded by the Assistant District Judge and the decree made by him came up in second appeal to this Court.
6. Sri Das urged, practically speaking, two points in support of the appeal. Firstly, he submitted that the Munsiff had rightly held on the basis of the written st
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
