Jharkhand High Court
Basudev Yadav vs Baleshwar Yadav on 15 April, 2026
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2026:JHHC:10837
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 29 of 2023
Basudev Yadav, aged about 72 years, son of late Ayodhya Mahto,
resident of Village - Katiya, P.O. and P.S. - Kunda, District -
Deoghar, Jharkhand
... ... Opposite party/Defendant/Appellant
Versus
1. Baleshwar Yadav, son of Paitu Mahato
2. Dineshwar Yadav, son of Paitu Mahato
3. Sukhdev Prasad Yadav
4. Ganesh Yadav
5. Nundev Prasad Yadav
6. Naresh Prasad Yadav
All sons of Chatru Mahato
7. Jagarnath, son of Govind Mahato
8. Nawal Kishore Yadav, son of Govind Mahato
9. Arjun Prasad Yadav, son of Ram Sundar Mahato
10.Bhudev Prasad Yadav, son of Ram Sundar Mahato
11.Jaidev Mahato, son of Ram Sundar Mahato
12.Shankar Mahato, son of Muneshwar Yadav
13.Jayanti Devi
14.Manju Devi
15.Geeta Devi
All daughters of Muneshwar Yadav
16.Shrikant Yadav, son of Sumitra Devi
17.Nuju Devi, daughter of Kali Devi
18.Janki Devi, wife of late Kodi Mahato
19.Shivnarayan Yadav, son of late Kodi Mahato
20.Kunti Devi, wife of Ramdev Mahato
All are residents of village - Katia, P.O. and P.S. - Kunda,
District - Deoghar
... ... Petitioners/Plaintiffs/Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, Advocate For the Resp. Nos.1 to 8, 10, 12, 18 & 19: Mr. Jay Prakash Pandey, Advocate For the Resp. Nos.13 to 16 & 20: Mr. Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the Resp. Nos.9 & 11 : Mr. Ajay Kr. Sah, Advocate : Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate : Ms. Sanjana Shrestha, Advocate For the Respondent No.17 : Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate
---
44/15.04.2026 Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 23.12.2022 (award signed on 05.01.2023) passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge -cum- Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and 1 2026:JHHC:10837 Resettlement Authority, Dumka in Land Acquisition Case No. 61 of 2017.
3. The Land acquisition officer prepared and offered compensation to Baleshwar Yadav and others (hereinafter referred to as the respondents-awardees) to which Basudev Yadav (hereinafter referred to as the appellant-objector) raised objection. The objection having been rejected, the objector is the appellant before this Court.
4. Arguments of the appellant-objector A. The land involved in the present case was acquired in the year 2015-16 for extension of Deoghar airport and it was numbered as Land Acquisition Case No.2 of 2015-16. However, the award was prepared for an amount of Rs.6,31,38,232/- in the name of the respondents herein. Consequently, the present appellant filed his objection claiming to be the co-sharer of the property. B. The learned counsel has referred to the written statement filed by the present appellant before the learned court and has in particular referred to the genealogical table which was enclosed as Schedule- A to the written statement. He submits that essentially the dispute will boil out to the point as to whether Lattu Mahto (the ancestor of the appellant) was the son of Raju Mahto or not? C. By referring to the genealogical table, he submits that as per the appellant Raju Mahto had three sons - Kali Mahto, Masudan Mahto and Lattu Mahto and the son of Masudan Mahto was Jageshwar Mahto who died issueless. He submits that the award was prepared in the name of the descendants of Kali Mahto and the appellant is claiming share of the property being the descendants of Lattu Mahto.
D. The oral and documentary evidences have not been properly appreciated by the learned court.
E. Exhibit- 3 has not been properly considered by the learned court, inasmuch as, the same was an information received under Right to Information Act and as per the information furnished with respect to Jamabandi No. 17, the details of the raiyat has been shown as 'Lattu Mahto, son of Katuri Mahto'. He submits that there could be another person named Lattu Mahto whose father might be 2 2026:JHHC:10837 Katuri Mahto, but on the basis of exhibit- 3, it could not have been concluded that the appellant was not the descendant of Lattu Mahto. It transpired that exhibit- 3 was marked as exhibit without any objection.
F. A reference has also been made to certain photocopies of the documents which were sought to be placed on record and marked 'X' for identification, but it is not in dispute that the said documents being photocopies, were neither taken on record nor could have been taken on record. During the course of hearing, upon a query of this Court as to whether the appellant has any document to show that the appellant was the descendant of Lattu Mahto, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the document marked 'X' for identification is the document for that purpose. The records of the case reveal that the same was marked 'X' for identification with objection.
5. Arguments of the respondents- awardees I. It was the case of the appellant-objector that he was the descendant of Lattu Mahto and Lattu Mahto was son of Raju Mahto, but the appellant-objector failed to prove the genealogy and the onus was upon the appellant-objector to prove the genealogy as claimed by him. The respondents-awardees, in whose favour the award was prepared, produced sufficient materials on record to prove that they were the descendants of Kali Mahto son of Raju Mahto and the award was rightly prepared in their name.
II. No objection was raised with respect to exhibit-3 while the same was marked as exhibit and taken on record wherein it was clearly mentioned that the father's name of Lattu Mahto was Katuri Mahto and the same was recorded with respect to Jamabandi No. 17, which is not the property involved in the present case. III. The learned counsel has also referred to the findings recorded by the learned court and has submitted that the learned court has taken into consideration all the materials on record while coming to a finding against the appellant-objector and the same does not call for any interference.
32026:JHHC:10837 Findings of this Court.
6. The appellant-objector claims that Raju Mahto had three sons including Lattu Mahto and he along with others were the descendants of Lattu Mahto and upon death of Jageshwar Mahto (brother of Lattu Mahto), his property devolved upon his two surviving brothers, and therefore, the appellant-objector also has a share in the property / compensation.
On the other hand, the case of the respondents-awardees is that Raju Mahto had only two sons, including their common ancestor Kali Mahto, and that upon death of his brother Jageshwar Mahto, his property devolved upon the respondents-awardees. The claim of the appellant- objector is disputed.
In the aforesaid premise, the point for determination would be-
Whether Raju Mahto had three sons namely, Kali Mahto, Masudan Mahto and Lattu Mahto or Raju Mahato had only two sons namely, Kali Mahto, Masudan Mahto?
7. The genealogy as given by the respondents-awardees before the learned court and referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents- awardees is embossed as under:
8. The specific case of the respondents-awardees, who are the descendants of Kali Mahto, is that the acquired property was recorded in the names of the four sons of Kali Mahto with Jageshwar Mahto 4 2026:JHHC:10837 son of Masudan Mahto, the nephew of Kali Mahto and stating that Raju Mahto was the common ancestor of Kali Mahto and Masudan Mahto. The four sons of Kali Mahto, i.e. Bihari Mahto, Sampat Mahto, Begu Mahto and Mohan Mahto were the recorded tenants along with Jageshwar Mahto, son of Masudan Mahto. However, Jageshwar Mahto died issueless, and consequently, the entire property devolved upon the legal heirs and successors of Kali Mahto.
9. On this basis, it was claimed that the respondents-awardees were the rightful owners of the property and they were legal heirs of the recorded tenants in J.B. No.23 of Mouza Katia and they were in possession on payment of rent. It was also asserted that the share of each awardee was also defined in land acquisition case as well as in the impugned award itself.
10. It was their further case that the appellant-objector Basudev Mahto, son of Ayodhya Mahto of village Kurumtanr, P.S. Kunda, District Deoghar, fraudulently claimed a share in the compensation amount without any basis and filed an objection, whose objection was rejected and subsequently his objection was referred to the court for adjudication under Section 76 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
11. It was their specific case that the appellant-objector is an outsider and not related any way with the recorded tenants of khata no.23 of Gantzer's J.B. No.23 of mouza Katia and neither have any right, title and interest with respect to the property in mouza katia, nor they have cultivated the property at any point of time nor paid rent. It was also asserted that the ancestor of appellant-objector was Paras Mahto, who was not the raiyat of Khata no.23 of mouza katia.
12. On the other hand, appellant-objector furnished their own genealogy. The genealogy as given by the objector and relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is embossed as under:
52026:JHHC:10837
13. It was asserted that as per the genealogy, Raju Mahto was the common ancestor, who had three sons namely Kali Mahto, Masudan Mahto and Lattu Mahto and they were the descendants of Lattu Mahto, the third son of Raju Mahto.
14. As per the genealogy, it is not in dispute that four sons of Kali Mahto and one son of Masudan Mahto namely Jageshwar Mahto, were the recorded tenants and that Jageshwar Mahto died issueless. So, the case of the objector was that Jageshwar Mahto, the recorded tenant, died issueless, and the branch of Masudan Mahto became extinct. Consequently, share of Masudan Mahto devolved equally upon the branch of Kali Mahto and Lattu Mahto. On this basis, the legal heirs of Lattu Mahto also claimed a share in the awarded amount. It was asserted that the property was originally owned by Raju Mahto but on account of family arrangement the property was recorded only in the name of sons of Kali Mahto and Masudan Mahto.
15. The learned court framed as many as 8 issues, which are as follows:
"(i). Whether the present reference as framed is maintainable?
(ii). Whether objector has valid cause of action to make objection regarding reference?
(iii). Whether the claim of the objector is barred by the principle of estoppel, acquiescence and waiver?6
2026:JHHC:10837
(iv). Whether claim of the objector is barred by the limitation?
(v). Whether the objector Basudeo Yadav and others are descendants of the recorded tenants of J.B.No.23 of mouza Katia?
(vi). Whether Jageshwar Mahto died issueless in jointness with recorded tenants of last survey settlement?
(vii). Whether awardees are entitled to receive the entire compensation amount as awarded in this case?
(viii). Whether objectors have got any manner of right, title and interest over acquired land and subsequently over compensation amount?"
16. However, the point for determination in the present case would be relating to issue no.v i.e. Whether the objector Basudeo Yadav and others are descendants of the recorded tenants of J.B.No.23 of mouza Katia?
17. The objectors were claiming to be the descendants of Lattu Mahto and claimed that Lattu Mahto was one of the three sons of Raju Mahto.
18. On behalf of respondents-awardees, two witnesses were produced. P.W. 1 Arjun Mahto, son of Ramsundar Mahto and also one of the awardees, supported that genealogy as given by them and during his cross-examination, he has clearly stated that it was not correct to say that Kali Mahto, Masudan Mahto and Lattu Mahto were full brothers and has also stated that only Kali Mahto, Masudan Mahto were the brothers. He has stated that with respect to another property at mouza Satar, the purcha is in the name of Bihari Mahto, Sampat Mahto, Begu Mahto and Mohan Mahto, all sons of Kali Mahto as well as Jageshwar Mahto, son of Masudan Mahto and he could not say whether the name of Rupan Mahto, son of Lattu Mahto also finds place in the purcha along with them. He has denied that Rupan Mahto is his cousin.
72026:JHHC:10837
19. So far as witness no.2 is concerned, he is Jaidev Mahto, son of Shyam Sundar Mahto, who was also one of the awardees. He has stated that in Gantzer survey settlement, jamabandi no.23 is recorded in the name of Bihari Mahto, Sampat Mahto, Begu Mahto, Mohan Mahto and Jageshwar Mahto and the awardees are the descendants of the recorded tenants and also stated that Basudev Mahto and others have no relation or right with respect to the property. This witness was not cross-examined and was discharged.
20. So far as the objectors are concerned, Mahadev Mahto, son of Ayodhya Mahto was examined as a witness who stated that Kali Mahto, Masudan Mahto and Lattu Mahto were full brothers and they were sons of Raju Mahto and he has filed the genealogy. He also stated that in the property in mouza Satar, Raju Mahto, and his three sons had been shown in joint possession with respect to Jamabandi no.101. He also stated that Rupan Mahto son of Lattu Mahto, Bihari Mahto, Sampat Mahto, Begu Mahto and Mohan Mahto, all sons of Kali Mahto and Jageshwar Mahto, son of Masudan Mahto were shown as jamabandi raiyats in jamabandi no.101. He filed a photocopy of the purcha which was marked 'X' for identification. He further stated that so far as jamabandi no.23 is concerned, by way of family arrangement, the property was recorded in the names of the sons of Kali Mahto, although, the same was recorded in Macpherson settlement purcha in the name of Raju Mahto, son of Thakuri Mahto. This witness has been duly cross-examined and he asserted that with respect to jamabandi no.23, the jamabandi raiyat was Raju Mahto. With respect to Katia mouza, he stated that in Jamabandi no.23, total area was 24.24 acres but he could not say as to what portion of the property was Dhani and what portion was bari. He could not say as to what was the dag number of jamabandi no.23. He has further stated that the rent receipt with respect to jamabandi no.23 was being paid in the name of Bihari and Jageshwar Mahto. His house is in Kurumtanr and he also has property in Satar mouza. He stated that purcha was made in 1932 and when purcha was made, his ancestor did not file any case.
82026:JHHC:10837
21. This Court finds that both the parties have led oral evidence in support of their genealogy and accordingly the documentary evidence is required to be examined. The objectors have not brought on record any documentary evidence to show that Raju Mahto had three sons which included Lattu Mahto. The objectors claimed that some property was recorded jointly in the name of the three sons/their decendants but no such document could be exhibited and filing of photocopies which were marked X for identification is of no consequences. The objectors also could not prove that the property involved in this case was recorded in the joint name of sons of Kali Mahto and Masudan Mahto out of any family arrangement and consequently the name of Lattu Mahto was not included.
22. Thus, the objectors have completely failed to prove their claim that Lattu Mahto was the son of Raju Mahto and could not even prove the alleged family arrangement on the basis of which they claimed that the property involved in this case was recorded only in the name of the sons of Kali Mahto and Masudan Mahto.
23. In L.A. Case No.2 of 2015-2016 also, with respect to khata no.23, Basudev Mahto and others had filed their claim over the property against the property of Jageshwar Mahto, but no evidence was produced and the claim of Basudev Mahto and others was rejected vide exhibit-2.
24. Exhibit 1 which is certified copy of Khatian jamabandi no.23 showed that jamabandi no.23 was recorded in the name of Bihari Mahto, Sampat Mahto, Begu Mahto and Mohan Mahto, all sons of Kali Mahto and Jageshwar Mahto, son of Masudan Mahto.
25. The learned court has rightly relied upon Section 25 of the Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872 to observe that the entries made in the purcha will be conclusive proof of the rights of the parties recorded therein. Section 25 of the Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872 is quoted as under:-
"[25. Record to be final after six months publication.-(1) After a period of six months from the date of publication of the record-of- rights of any village, such records shall be conclusive proof of the 9 2026:JHHC:10837 rights and customs therein recorded, other than the rights mentioned in Section 25-A, except so far as concerned entries in such record regarding which objections by parties interested may still be pending in the Original or Appellate Courts, or may still be open to appeal.
(2) .............
(3) When a record-of-rights has become final, or any objection to any entry in a record-of-rights has been finally disposed of in the Settlement Courts, and when all final decisions and orders, including such as may have been passed on revision as provided in sub-section (2), have been correctly embodied therein, such record shall not, until a fresh settlement is made or a new table of rates and rent-rols are prepared, be re-opened without the previous sanction of the [State] Government 25-A. Suits to contest Settlement Officer's decision.- Where only the rights of zamindars and other proprietors as between themselves are concerned, a suit may, unless it is barred by Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (14 of 1882), be brought in a Court established under the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 (12 of 1887), to contest the finding or record of the Settlement Officer, within three years from the date of the publication of the record-of-rights, or of the final order of the Revenue Court. But no such suit shall be brought in any Court after the expiration of three years from such date.
If in any such suit it is found that the finding of the Settlement Officer is erroneous, the record shall be amended accordingly.]"
26. The claim of the objectors that Lattu Mahto was the third son of Raju Mahto has been negated by referring to one information obtained from the record room of Deputy Commissioner, Dumka which was marked exhibit 3 without any objection which showed that the name of father of Lattu Mahto was Katuri Mahto and not Raju Mahto.
27. This Court finds that in the record of rights; there is neither the name of Lattu Mahto nor there is the name of any of the descendants of Lattu Mahto including the objectors. The learned court has rightly referred to the provisions of Section 25 of the Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872 to hold that the awardees were the descendants of the recorded tenants including Jageshwar Mahto, who was one of the recorded tenants, but died issueless, and therefore, his property devolved upon the legal heirs of Kali Mahto- the awardees.
28. This Court finds that the learned court has rightly referred to the provisions of Section 25 of The Santhal Parganas Settlement 10 2026:JHHC:10837 Regulation, 1872 which was sufficient to prove the claim of the awardees. So far as the objectors are concerned, although they claimed that Lattu Mahto was 3rd son of Raju Mahto, but they could not bring on record any evidence with respect to such claim. Although certain photocopies of documents were filed, which were marked 'X' for identification, but no steps were taken to bring evidence on record, and accordingly, those photocopies were of no consequences.
29. It was for the objectors to prove the genealogy as claimed by them, but they have miserably failed to do so. The genealogy furnished by the awardees, on the other hand, stood proved on the basis of the entries made in the purcha (exhibit-1) and in view of Section 25 of the Santhal Paragana Regulation, 1872.
30. This Court finds that the learned trial court has considered all the materials on record and has come to a definite finding that the objectors were not the descendants of Raju Mahto. Thus, the objectors have failed to prove the genealogy as claimed.
31. The point of determination is decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondents. It is held that objectors Basudev Yadav and others are not the descendants of recorded tenants of J.B. No.23 of mouza Katia. The objectors failed to prove that Raju Mahto had a third son namely Lattu Mahto.
32. This Court finds that the impugned judgement is a well- reasoned judgement and does not call for any interference.
33. Accordingly, the instant First Appeal stands dismissed.
34. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated:15.04.2026 Saurav/-
Date of Uploading: 30.04.2026 11