Back
2020 Supreme(Jhk) 1173
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Mahendra Ram and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
C.M.D. Tata Steel Ltd. and Ors. - Respondent
First Appeal No. 29 of 2009
Decided On : 01-07-2020
For the Appellant : Bhavesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondents: G.M. Mishra, Adv.
The Hukumnama required registration and was inadmissible as evidence of title. The plaintiffs failed to prove their title and the suit was dismissed.
Headnote:
Hukumnama - Title Suit - Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, Mineral Concession Rule, 1960 - The court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff filed with a prayer for declaration of title over the suit land. The plaintiffs claimed to have acquired the land through Hukumnama granted by Ex-landlord in 1934. The defendants argued that the suit land was Gairmajarua land and the State Government had given permission to use it for mining purposes. The court held that the Hukumnama required registration and was inadmissible as evidence of title. The plaintiffs failed to prove their title and the suit was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs claimed ownership of the suit land based on a Hukumnama granted by the Ex-landlord in 1934. The defendants argued that the suit land was Gairmajarua land and the State Government had given permission to use it for mining purposes. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and dismissed the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Hukumnama required registration and was inadmissible as evidence of title. The plaintiffs failed to prove their title and the suit was dismissed.
Issues: The suit's maintainability, cause of action, misjoinder of defendant, Specific Relief Act, entitlement for reliefs, and relief for the plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi: The Hukumnama required registration and was inadmissible as evidence of title. The plaintiffs failed to prove their title and the suit was dismissed.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs as they failed to prove their title over the suit land.
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
1. Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the Judgment and decree dated 23.01.2009 in Title Suit No. 82 of 2007 passed by learned Sub-Judge-I, Hazaribagh whereby and where under learned Sub-Judge-I, Hazaribagh has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff filed with a prayer for declaration of title over the suit land along with the cost and other reliefs.
3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that Rathera Ram, Badri Baitha, Raman Mahto, Bansi Ram S/o. Hari Ram, Bansi Ram S/o. Chaman Ram, Lakhan Ram, Mokhan Ram, Diga Mahto, Wahid Ali and Naresh Singh Das Gupta acquired the land of Khata no. 1, plot nos. 17, 18, 21, in total area 38 Acres of village Parsabeda, P.S. Mandu, District-Hazaribagh through Hukumnama granted by Ex-landlord in the year 1934. The said land was recorded Gairmajarua Khas in the cadastral survey. Later on, the plaintiffs reclaimed the said land with great labour at their own cost. After granting of Hukumnama, Zamindari rent receipts were issued to the plaintiffs. After vesting of the Zamindari, the name of the plaintiffs have been registered in Register-II of the Circle Office of block-Mandu and revenue receipts were issued and the plaintiffs have been paying rent till date of filing of suit. The plaintiff no. 1 is the son of Rathera Ram. Raman Mahto, has transferred his share in favour of plaintiff no. 3-Kameshwar Mahto through Bazinama and plaintiff no. 4, being the son of Bansi Ram, S/o. Hari Ram, inherited his property after the death Bansi Ram. The plaintiff no. 5 Manraj Ram is the son of Bansi Ram, s/o. Chaman Ram and as father of the plaintiff no. 5 has become old and unable to attend the Court, hence, the plaintiff no. 5 is representing him in this suit. Similarly, the plaintiff no. 6 is representing his old father Diga Mahto and plaintiff no. 7 is son of Wahid Ali-since deceased, whereas plaintiff no. 8 is the son of Narsingh Das Gupta-since deceased. Plaintiff no. 9 is representing his old father Lakhan Ram. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff nos. 1 to 6 and 9 to 10 are the occupancy and settled Raiyats of the suit lands. The further case of the plaintiffs is that the forest settlement officer has released the suit land of Khata no. 1, plot no. 17, area 12.23 Acre, plot no. 21, area 7.12 Acres and plot no. 18, Area 18.65 acres, total area 38.00 Acres, in favour of plaintiffs vide case no. 335/63-64, vide order dated 16.12.64 and since then, the plaintiffs have been in actual possession of the suit land and converted the same to paddy lands. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the staff of the company of the defendants without having any right, title and interest, dug some portion of the suit land and took out minerals from there. Though, the plaintiffs protested but the defendants did not obey them. The plaintiffs sent notice through their lawyers on 26.02.2007 and 29.03.2007 to defendant no. 2 but defendant no. 2 did not reply to the same.
4. On the other hand, the case of the defendants is that the suit of the plaintiffs suffers from misjoinder of defendant no. 1 and non-joinder of the company itself and there is no cause of action for the suit. It is also the case of the defendants that most part of the suit lands, has already been exploited for mining operations and the defendants have already been carrying out several activities over the portions of the suit lands by building roads etc. and the company has been in possession of the suit land. So, the plaintiffs being not in possession of the suit land should pray for recovery of the possession or else, the suit is not maintainable. The defendants admit that the suit land was recorded as Gairmajarua Khas but they denied that the plaintiffs or from whom, they claimed to have acquired right, title, interest over the suit land, ever reclaimed the suit land by taking permission from the Ex-landlord and no occasion arose for the Ex-la
