IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

S.A. No. 43 of 2010

1.(a) Gano Devi

1.(b) Kedar Ram

1.(c) Banwari Ram

1.(d) Koleshwar Ram

1.(e) Baleshwar Ram

1.(f) Bhola Ram

1.(g) Sakhi Devi @ Hemanti Devi

....

…. Appellants

Versus

1. The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

through the Deputy Commissioner,

Hazaribag, at present Chatra

2. The Divisional Forest Officer (South),

Chatra

3. The Range Officer, Simaria Range,

Hazaribag

4. The Forest Officer, Simaria,

Hazaribag

5. The Forest Guard, Lepo Forest,

Simaria, Hazaribag

....

.... Respondents

------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Appellants

: Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Tiwary, Advocate

For the Respondents

: Mr. Praveen Akhouri, Advocate

Oral Order

10 / Dated : 09.02.2022

1. The plaintiffs are the appellants who have preferred the instant appeal

against the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the judgment and

decree passed in Title Appeal No. 26 of 2006 by which the dismissal of

the plaintiff’s suit in Title Suit No. 25 of 1991 has been affirmed.

2. For convenience the parties shall be referred by their original placement

in the suit and will include their legal representatives.

3. The plaintiff Narayan Ram filed the suit against the Government of

Bihar now Jharkhand with respect to 40 acres of land under Khata No.

1, Plot Nos. 2 and 368 of village Lepo, Police Station- Simaria, Thana

No. 186 District Hazaribag for declaration of title and possession over

the land.

4. The claim of title over the suit land is bases on the plea that the

plaintiffs reclaimed the land alongwith 135 trees of Sakhuwa and 10

trees of Mahuwa and was settled by the ex-landlord on payment of

Rs.200/- as salami and Rs.20/- as rent and on 4.2.1935 a Hukumnama

2

was issued to that effect. Subsequently, the forest department tried to

oust the plaintiffs by putting demarcation then the plaintiffs filed case

No. 117/1963-64 and got the land released from the forest department.

On these documents he moved the Circle Officer for opening the

demand in his name in the revenue records but without success. The

forest department filed case under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act

claiming that it was a part of reserve forest. Consequently, the instant

suit has been filed.

5. The case of the forest department is that the entire suit land has been

declared protected forest under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act vide

notification dated 2.1.1953 and despite this the plaintiffs encroached the

forest land. The settlement deed by way of Hukumnama and release of

the forest land has been disputed.

6. The learned trial Court on the pleadings of the parties framed all

together 12 issues out of which Issue Nos. 7, 8, 9 & 10 are the main

issued which are as follows:

(vii) Whether plaintiff has got right, title and possession on the suit

land?

(viii)Whether the father of the plaintiff has got the korkar right on suit

land?

(ix) Whether the suit land has been settled in the name of the plaintiff

by the Estate of Ramgarh?

(x) Whether the name of the plaintiff is registered in the panji of the

ex-landlord?

7. The learned Trial Court recorded a finding of fact against the plaintiff

on the following grounds on these material issues. Firstly, the sada

Hukumnama propriety (Exhibit-1) issued on 3.2.1935 had the signature

of the Manager dated 4.2.1935 and there was over writing in the

signature. The documents do not appear on its face value to be more

than 15-16 years old whereas it has been claimed to have been issued in

1935. Secondly, Exhibit-2, which is the revenue receipt issued by the

Ramgarh Raj does not mention the name of the person in whose favour

it has been issued nor Rs.200/- on the receipt has been written after

erasing the earlier writing. The name of the payee has not been

mentioned nor is the name of khata or plot mentioned there. T