Entries in revenue records do not confer title; ownership must be confirmed through appropriate legal channels.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA CAV ORDER

10 22-12-2025 Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Chandram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Syed Qaisar Hasan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The present Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2019 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in Title Appeal No. 160 of 2018 whereby the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2018 passed by the learned Munsif-II (Sadar), Bhagalpur in Title Suit No. 91 of 2017 has been reversed.

3. In the instant Second Appeal, the defendant is the appellant.

4. The plaintiff-respondent filed Title Suit No. 91 of

2017 against the State of Bihar for declaration of his right, title and interest over the suit land and further prayed that if the Court finds that the plaintiff has been dispossessed from the suit land, possession shall be delivered to the plaintiff in accordance with due process of law.

5. In order to appreciate the case in its proper perspective, it is necessary to briefly restate the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s case is that he is the raiyat of the suit land. The ex-landlord had submitted Return in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff’s father, namely Babu Shiv Shankar Prasad, in respect of the suit land. Babu Shiv Shankar Prasad, son of Babu Bishundeo Sahay; Dwarikar Prasad, son of Brahamdeo Sahay and Babu Bihari Sahay, son of late Lakshmi Narayan Sahay, were the settled raiyats of the suit land. The said raiyats sold the Schedule-A land of the plaint to the plaintiff’s father, namely Mahendra Prasad Singh, appertaining to C.S. Khata No. 380, C.S. Plot No. 2392 of Touzi No. 2542, corresponding to R.S. Khata No. 3606 and R.S. Plot No. 6516, measuring an area of 2 acres and 29 decimals, through a registered sale deed dated 18.01.1964 for a consideration of Rs. 900/-, with definite boundaries. From the date of purchase, the plaintiff’s father and thereafter, the plaintiff have remained in continuous possession of the suit land.The vendor of the father of the plaintiff of the suit land had been duly recognized as raiyat after filing the Return under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the “BLR Act”). After the death of Mahendra Prasad Singh, the plaintiff succeeded to the right, title and interest of his father and has been in cultivating possession of the entire suit land, using the same according to his convenience.

6. Further case of the plaintiff is that after the purchase of the suit land, his father amalgamated the same with his other land situated to the north of the suit land. The plaintiff’s father excavated a ditch (garha) for the purpose of storing rainwater for personal use, particularly for irrigation of the lands. The said water reservoir has always been under the exclusive use of the plaintiff’s family and the public at large has no concern with this water reservoir. It is further pleaded that on 31.12.2016, the plaintiff approached the local Karamchari for issuance of rent receipt in respect of the suit land; however, the Karamchari refused to issue the rent receipt and further threatened the plaintiff, stating that the suit land had been recorded as ‘Anabad Bihar Sarkar’ in the Revisional Survey Khatiyan and that the State of Bihar was likely to forcibly dispossess him from the suit land. According to the plaintiff, the entry in the Revisional Survey Khatiyan recording the suit land as ‘Anabad Bihar Sarkar’ is erroneous and illegal. Consequently, the cause of action arose, leading to the institution of the present suit after due