Patna High Court - Orders
Digeshwar Pd. Srivastava & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 29 April, 2014
Author: V. Nath
Bench: V. Nath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Second Appeal No.57 of 2012
======================================================
1. Digeshwar Pd. Srivastava.
2. Kameshwar Prasad Srivastava.
Both sons of Late Sant Prasad Lal.
3. Ranju Srivastava, Wife of Late Rameshwar Prasad Srivastava.
4. Sweta Laxmi, Daughter of Late Rameshwar Prasad Srivastava.
All residents of Village-Kuchhila, P.O.and P.S.-Kuchhila, District-
Kaimur.
5. Kalawati Devi, Wife of Prem Narayan Srivastava, Resident of Village-
Gahmar, P.O. & P.S.-Gahmar, District- Gazipur (U.P.).
6. Lilawati Devi, Wife of Mahesh Lal Srivastava, Resident of Village-
Kunj, P.O.-Darauli, District-Kaimur (Bhabhua).
7. Vidyawati Devi, Wife of Naren Verma, Resident of Village & P.O.-
Gangauli, District-Rohtas-Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants.
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Collector of Rohtas at Sasaram.
2. The Circle Officer, Kochas, Resident of Village & P.O.-Kochas,
District-Rohtas.
3. Gram Panchayat Sheopur, Saraiyan, through Mukhiya Gram Panchayat
Sheopur, Saraiyan, Resident of Village, P.O. & P.S.-Kochas, District-
Rohtas -Respondents/ Respondents/ Respondents.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shri Krishna Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH
ORAL ORDER
11 29-04-2014Heard Mr Nagendra Rai, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants.
The plaintiffs (substituted heirs of the sole plaintiff) are the appellants in this appeal against the judgment and decree of Patna High Court SA No.57 of 2012 (11) dt.29-04-2014 2 affirmance by the appellate court upholding the dismissal of the suit.
The plaintiffs filed the suit only for the relief for declaration of title over the suit land mentioned in the plaint. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they acquired the suit land through settlement by grant of Parwana from the authorities of Khas Mahal in the year 1932 whereby 1.44 acres of land of C.S.Khata No.19 C.S.Plot No.10 of village-Dharampura was settled with them. It is further case of the plaintiff that later on the authorities of Khas Mahal prepared a separate Khata No.24, Plot No.10 with respect to the settled land in the name of settlee (the predecessor-in- interest of the plaintiffs). The plaintiffs have alleged that during the revisional survey proceeding the settled land of the plaintiffs have been included in the R.S.Khata No.49 R.S.Plot No.4 Area 1.44 acres and has been wrongly recorded in the name of Anabad Sarv Sadharan. The plaintiffs filed T.S.No.268/1975 for declaration of their title over the settled land but the said suit later on abated under Section 4(C) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Thereafter the plaintiffs filed the case before the consolidation authority which was also decided against them in the year 1991. The plaintiffs thereafter filed appeal against Patna High Court SA No.57 of 2012 (11) dt.29-04-2014 3 the order of the consolidation authority but it is their case that the said appeal could not be decided as the entire consolidation proceeding was suspended. In the backdrop of these facts the present suit has been filed for the relief as aforementioned.
The defendant-State of Bihar has contested the claim of the plaintiffs and denied the settlement of the suit land through Parwana and delivery of possession to the plaintiffs. The defendant has also denied the grant of rent receipt to the plaintiffs with regard to the suit lands and has asserted that the suit land is public land and has been rightly recorded in the recent survey records of rights as such.
Both the courts below after scrutinizing the pleadings and evidence of the parties have come to the concurrent finding that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their claim of title over the suit land through settlement. The suit was dismissed and thereafter the appeal has also been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree.
Mr Rai, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the courts below have discarded the documentary evidence of the plaintiffs on flimsy ground, and has laid particular stress on the rent receipts at Ext.1 series as well as the Parwana (Ext.2 Series). It has been urged that both the courts below have Patna High Court SA No.57 of 2012 (11) dt.29-04-2014 4 misread the exhibits and thereafter have reached to the wrong conclusion. The learned counsel has pointed out that in the aforesaid exhibits only the plot number has been mentioned and there is no mention of khata number. The learned counsel has also placed reliance on a decision in the case of Hafiza Khatoon Vs The State of Bihar, 1991(1)PLJR 384 for his submissions that the rent receipts granted by the State of Bihar if not assailed to be forged and fabricated and not established to be so, shall have to be accepted as evidence of settlement. On the basis of these submissions, the learned counsel has contended that the judgment and decree of both the courts below are vulnerable.
From the perusal of the impugned judgments of both the courts below and after considering the submissions on behalf of the appellants, it is pellucid that the plaintiffs have come out with the case that 1.44 acres of land of C.S.Khata No.19, C.S. Plot No.10 was settled by the authority of Khas Mahal with the predecessor of the plaintiffs and Parwana (Ext.2) was granted. It is also the case of the plaintiffs the Khas Mahal Authority later on created C.S.Khata No.24, C.S.Plot No. 10 with regard to the settled land. The plaintiffs have claimed to have acquired title over the suit land on that basis. The plaintiffs have accepted that earlier to this suit, they had filed another suit i.e. T.S.No.268/75 which Patna High Court SA No.57 of 2012 (11) dt.29-04-2014 5 stood abated under Section 4(c) of the Act and thereafter it has further been accepted by the plaintiffs that the consolidation case filed by them was dismissed by the consolidation officer and the appeal thereafter could not be decided due to suspension of the consolidation proceedings. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit in the year 1995 for declaration of title.
From the records it appears that both the courts below have come to the finding that the documentary evidence like rent receipts (Ext.-1 Series) and Parwana do not show that the same relate to the suit land. It has been found by both the courts below that although the plaintiffs have claimed that 1.44 acres of land of C.S.Plot No.10, C.S.Khata No.19 has been settled with them but nowhere in these documentary evidence, there was any reference to the C.S.Khata No.19 rather there was reference to C.S. Khata No.21/24 which was not the suit land.
On behalf of the plaintiffs, no evidence has been led to connect or establish correlation between C.S.Khata No.19 and C.S. Khata No.21. Even in his deposition as P.W.2, the plaintiff no.1 (a) has failed to explain the anomaly. No evidence has also been led to establish the creation of Khata No. 24 out of the land of C.S.Khata No.19. The plaintiffs have also not filed the C.S Khatian, the Register II and the Return filed by the ex-landlord to Patna High Court SA No.57 of 2012 (11) dt.29-04-2014 6 corroborate the case of settlement of the suit land as pleaded. The submission by the learned counsel for the appellants that the rent receipts produced by the plaintiffs have been misread and as the same have not been claimed to be forged and fabricated and also not established to be so, the courts below should have placed reliance on the same or at least given due weightage to them.
From the judgments of both the courts below it is transparent that both the courts below have reached to the categorical finding that the documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs do not relate to the suit land. In this view of the matter obviously enough there was no need for declaring those documents to be forged and fabricated. The reliance on behalf of the appellants on the decision in the case of Hafiza Khatoon (Supra) is clearly misplaced as the facts are quite distinguishable. The findings by the courts below are based on appreciation of evidence on record and there is no unreasonableness or perversity in the same.
It also appears that earlier the plaintiffs had filed the suit in the year 1975 against the defendant-State of Bihar and thereafter the claim of the plaintiff had admittedly been negatived by the consolidation court after the abatement of the said suit under the provision of Section 4 (c) of the Act. This suit has been Patna High Court SA No.57 of 2012 (11) dt.29-04-2014 7 filed in the year 1995 with the same relief of declaration of title. Article 58 of the Limitation Act prescribes a period of three years for the suit for declaration and starting point of limitation is when the right to sue first accrues. In this fact situation there is again no scope for interference with the findings of both the courts below that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation.
In view of the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I do not find any substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.
(V. Nath, J) Nitesh/-