IMPORTANT POINT
[The court established that land declared as protected forest under the Indian Forest Act cannot be claimed by individuals without valid title, and that any prior claims based on unregistered documents are insufficient against state declarations.]

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Heard Mr. Arwind Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Nawal Kishore Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. The appellants/appellants/plaintiffs have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 27.03.2019 and decree dated 11.04.2019 passed by the learned District Judge-I, Giridih in Civil Appeal No.34/2015 dismissing the said appeal and affirming the judgment dated 16.09.2015 and decree dated 30.09.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-II, Giridih in Title Suit No.159/2000.

3. The appellants/plaintiffs have instituted the suit for declaration of their title over the suit land more specifically described in the schedule of the plaint and also for confirmation of their possession over the suit land. They also prayed that the order passed by the learned Additional Collector, Giridih in Revision Case No.1/1999-2000 be declared as illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs.

4. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court was as under:

The land under Khata no.1, plot no.92, Mauza Jamdiha Gadi Doranda under P.S. Dhanwar, Dist.-Giridih, total area 1.5 acre was purchased by the plaintiffs from one Triloki Pandey on 31.08.78 by paying consideration amount of Rs. 2,000/-and since then they have been coming in actual physical possession exercising every right, title, interest over the purchased land. That during the last cadestral survey settlement operation, the suit land was recorded as Gair Mazurua forest land of the then landlord Tikait Birendra Narayan Singh, who settled the suit land in favour of Rameshwar Pandey, Triloki Pandey and Lakhan Pandey through Hukumnama executed in the year of 1947 (1354 Sal Fasli) and thereafter the settlee developed this land by clearing the jungle and brought the particular suit land under cultivation. The said settlees also paid rent to the then landlord and after the vesting of estate to the State Government, the settlees were also recognized as tenants and rent receipts were issued to them.

Further case of the plaintiffs was that earlier the land was in joint possession of Rameshwar Pandey and others as a joint Hindu family property, which they got separated in the year 1978 by metes and bounds and after the separation one share holder Triloki Pandey, who got this suit land in his exclusive share, transferred the land in favour of the plaintiffs by executing a sale deed no. 11854 on 31.08.78. That the plaintiffs after purchasing the land through sale deed applied for mutation before the Anchal Adhikari, Dhanwar and through the mutation case no. 241/1978-79/57/1979-80, Jamabandi was opened in the name of the plaintiffs and rent receipts were also issued. However after the expiry of about a decade one Nandlal Mishra (Forester under Giridih Forest Division) filed a petition before the Anchal Adhikari for the cancellation of the mutation in the name of plaintiffs taking the plea that through notification no. CR-17066/TP-3417 dated 11.04.54, the entire land of plot no. 92 has been declared protected forest. The Anchal Adhikari sent the case to the Court of Land Revenue Deputy Collector, who also decided the case in favour of the plaintiffs by passing order in L.R. Case no. 64/1998-99. The plaintiffs have pleaded that during the pendency of case before L.R.D.C., one Teklal Mahto appeared as intervenor, who challenged the order of L.R.D.C. before Additional Collector, Giridih, who allowed the revision and cancelled the Jamabandi opened in the name of plaintiffs and thereafter official of defendant no. 2 and 3 started filing false and frivolous criminal forest case against the plaintiffs and those officers also called on plaintiff no. 3 and threatened him to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land.

The plaintiffs had also pleaded that the aforementioned illegal and coercive methods adopted by the defendants have caused a serious cloud over the right, title, possession and interest of the pl