Mere possession and the payment of revenue rent do not confer proprietary title over government land. In the absence of verifiable proof of lawful settlement or statutory conversion, such land remains vested in the state, and revenue documents alone cannot create title.

JUDGMENT :

1. I have already heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. T.N. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This instant second appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2011 (signed on 07.03.2011) passed by learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C.-I, Garhwa in Title Appeal No.20 of 2008 affirming and upholding the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2008 (signed on 03.10.2008) passed by learned Munsiff, Garhwa in Title Suit No.51 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the suit of the plaintiff has been dismissed.

3. Appellant has raised following substantial questions of law for adjudication in this second appeal :-

(i) Whether since the plaintiff was claiming raiyati rights on the basis of reclamation and conversion into Korkar, the learned Courts below have gravely erred in deciding issue No.VII against the plaintiff by relying upon the Amendment Act 25 of 1947, although the plaintiff had pleaded case of reclamation during 1945-46?

(ii) Whether the learned Courts below erred in not placing reliance on the possessory title, ought to have taken into consideration, since the appellant is in possession much prior to 1944 and he is recorded raiyat and, therefore, presumption as provided under section 84 sub-section (3) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act was liable to be taken into consideration?

4. On the other hand, the defendants/respondents have also filed cross-objection No.01 of 2012 which has been admitted on following substantial question of law :-

"Whether the ex-landlord manager of the wards and Encumbered Estate who was then managing Nagar Untari estate had settled the suit land to Shekhawat Khan and Shamsher Khan by granting customary parwana on 11.11.1940, has been wrongly decided on the ground that the suit land is Government land.

5. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the plaintiff has filed the aforesaid title suit claiming declaration of his right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and defendants have no right, title or possession over any part of the suit land along with cost of the suit. The basis of the claim of plaintiff is that the plaintiff has ancestral raiyati land in Village Bakoiya, P.S. Manjhiaon Plot No.248 inherited by Ram Sahayee Pathak and his three brothers and after partition between the brothers dated 16.02.1972, the land of pertaining to Plot No.248 area 28 decimal in Village Bakoiya, came into share of Ramprit Pathak (father of the plaintiff). It is alleged that father of the plaintiff along with above land of Plot No.248 reclaimed the Plot No.247 and amalgamated the same for cultivating paddy crops. The Circle Officer Manjhiaon fixed the fair rent against the said land and since then from the date of vesting of the intermediary interest into the State of Bihar, the Government realized regular rents from him. The schedule land of 23 decimal of Plot No.247 has been amalgamated with lands of Plot No.248, therefore, Plot No.247 has no separate existence but the name of the plaintiff also appears in the column of illegal possession at the time of revisional survey operation. Defendants have no right, title and interest over the suit land pertaining to Plot No.247 or disturbing the possession of the plaintiff and defendants attempted to trespass the aforesaid land of the plaintiff and extended threatening on 03.08.2003 to dispossess them, hence, this suit. The defendants appeared