IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

S.A No. 600 of 2015

Bishwa Nath Sao

.

…. …. Appellant(s).

Versus

1. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)

2. Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad

3. A.D.M (Law & Order), Dhanbad

4. Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Dhanbad

5. Anchal Adhikari, Nirsa, Dhanbad

…. …. Respondent(s)

------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

THROUGH : VIDEO CONFERENCING

------

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. R.N. Sahay, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Yashvardhan, Advocate

------

07/24.02.2022

The second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure

Code by the plaintiff-appellant herein.

2.

Heard Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. The case is being

heard under Order 41 Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code.

3.

Counsel for the appellant submits that both the courts below wrongly

appraised the evidence and the facts of this case. He submits that the land in

question was proposed to be settled in favour of the plaintiff as such he has got a

right for settlement of land. He submits that the land was of Gair Majurwa Malik

Khata and was in the possession and occupation of this plaintiff for a long period

of time, thus he is entitled for settlement and also for declaration of his title over

the land. As per him, his own land is contiguous to the suit property, thus the suit

land should be settled in his favour. It is his case that the aforesaid land was used

by the plaintiff for his ingress and egress and also during his family functions,

thus he has acquired an easementary rights over the same. On the aforesaid facts

the plaintiff prayed for a decree for declaration that he has acquired valid right,

title and interest over the property and defendant-State be directed to settle the

land in his favour.

4.

Defendants appeared and filed their written statement contesting the

claim. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff has got no right, title and

interest over the suit land and title cannot be declared in his favour. The defendants

specially took a stand that the aforesaid land is not the only passage for ingress

and egress of the plaintiff, thus he has got no easementary rights over the same. It

is the case of the State that the land belongs to the State of Bihar (now State of

Jharkhand) and there is no question of any settlement in favour of the plaintiff.

-2-

The question of adverse possession does not arise when the land admittedly

belongs to the Government which the plaintiff also acknowledges. It is the case

of the respondents-defendants that mere recommendation does not confer any

right of settlement in favour of the plaintiff and admittedly the recommendation,

if any, at all for settlement, was not acted upon.

5.

On basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the trial court framed six issues out

of which issue nos. 3 & 5 are important which is quoted here-in-below:-

<3. Whether the suit is barred by law of

limitation?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for settlement

of the suit land in his favour?=

6.

The plaintiff exhibited nine documents in his favour and also adduced oral

evidence. The trial court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence

held that plaintiff did not pay any amount of settlement fee nor any final settlement

order was passed by the competent authority regarding settlement of the suit land

in favour of the plaintiff by respondents, therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for

settlement of land in his favour. Further the trial court held that only a

recommendation was made to settle the land, but no final order was passed. Court

held that the orders of different revenue authorities were passed in the year 1981

and thus the suit is barred by limitation as suit was filed in the year 1998. The suit

was thus dismissed.

7.

The appellate court independently considered the evidence on record and

case of the parties and framed two points for consideration which are as