Back
2019 Supreme(Jhk) 830
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Anamika Sahkari Grih Nirman Samittee Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through Secretary of Defence – Respondent
S.A. No. 35 of 2016
Decided on : 24-09-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Mr. Saket Upadhyay, Mrs. Sweta Rani, Advocate
For the UOI :Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Mr. D.C. Mishra, Mr. Ramit Satender, Advocate
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 80 - Land Acquisition Act - Section 4 and 6 - Register documents from owners of lands - Possession be restored - Appellant plaintiff had instituted suit being Title Suit for declaration that no person other than appellant plaintiff society and its members has any right title and interest in any lands of village Humdrum –District Ranchi described in Schedule plaint - It was further prayed in title suit that none among defendants or their agents servants and employees have any right to interfere with rights of appellant plaintiff society and its members in suit lands – Held, Counsel for respondent Union of India further submits that lands were acquired as per series as per notifications of Land Acquisition Act - He further submits that two fact finding courts have already discussed entire facts including documents and it is not in domain of this Court to re appreciate documents and evidences by entertaining this Second Appeal - Counsel appearing for respondent State of Bihar have adopted arguments advanced by counsel appearing for respondent Union of India - Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to arguments advanced by parties this Court finds that two fact finding courts have come to concurrent finding and dismissed suit and appeal - This Court finds that both Courts below have considered each aspect of matter minutely and discussed evidence threadbare and came to concurrent finding - This Court is conscious of fact that Section Code of Civil Procedure if any substantial question of law is involved then only this Court can entertain Second Appeal - This Court is not inclined to re examine documents and evidences which have already been adduced before courts below – Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha assisted by Mr. Saket Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Union of India, Mr. D.C. Mishra, learned A.C. to Sr. S.C.-III appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand and Mr. Ramit Satender, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Bihar.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 26.09.2015 and decree signed on 13.10.2015 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Ranchi in Title Appeal No. 130 of 2003, whereby, the Title Appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed and judgment and decree dated 29.09.2003 (decree signed on 12.11.2003) passed by learned Sub-Judge-VII, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 185 of 1999 has been affirmed.
3. The appellant/plaintiff had instituted the suit being Title Suit No. 185 of 1999 for declaration that no person other than the appellant/plaintiff society and its members has any right, title and interest in any of the lands of village-Hundru, P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi described in Schedule of the plaint. It was further prayed in the title suit that none among the defendants or their agents, servants and employees have any right to interfere with the rights of the appellant/plaintiff society and its members in the suit lands. It was further prayed that a decree may be passed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff declaring the sale deed executed by the raiyats of the lands, which is purchased by the appellant/plaintiff itself and on behalf of the society, namely, Anamika Sahkari Grih Nirman Samittee. It was further prayed that possession of the appellant/plaintiff over the suit land be confirmed and in case it is found that the appellant/plaintiff society and its members have been dispossessed from the suit land, possession be restored to the appellant/plaintiff by evicting all agents, servants and employees of the respondents/defendants through the process of the court. It was further prayed in the title suit to declare that the suit lands described in the Schedule of the plaint were never acquired compulsorily under the Land Acquisition Act claiming perpetual injunction, and restraining the respondents/defendants from any interference in any manner with possession and enjoyment of the land in question and also for the costs.
4. The appellant/plaintiff pleaded before the courts below that the appellant/plaintiff is a society registered under the Bihar and Orissa Co operative Societies Act, having registration No.23/R/1986. The appellant/plaintiff contended that in the light of the judgment dated 12.02.1999 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1024 of 1996(R) and as per the direction passed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 74 of 1999(R) vide order dated 05.04.1999, the title suit was instituted urgently without serving any notice to the defendants under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it was prayed before the court below that leave under Section 80(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure be granted to the appellant/plaintiff for the same. The purpose of the appellant/plaintiff society for acquiring the lands was that after acquisition of lands in suitable area and after division of the same in sub-plots, such subplots will be distributed, allocated and transferred to its members. To that purpose, the appellant/plaintiff society acquired the lands in Village-Hundru for valuable consideration through registered documents from the owners of the lands. It was alleged that some of the lands have been purchased by some members of the society out of the lands purchased in the name of the society. The appellant/plaintiff-society further made out a case in the court below that the land under R.S. Khata No. 164, Khewat No.2 of Village Hundru is kayami raiyati land of Mahli Mahto, S/o Late Bechan and before the final publication of R.S. record of right, two sons of Mahli Mahto namely Mani Nath Mahto and Gariba Mahto had separated and possessed the
