Jharkhand High Court
Sarju Ram vs (I) Chatru Mhato on 14 July, 2022
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No. 221 of 2016
-----
Sarju Ram .... Appellant(s)
Versus
1. (i) Chatru Mhato
(ii) Dilip Mahto
(iii) Raju Mahto
(iv) Harendra Mahto
(v) Sabita Devi
(vi) Belwa Devi
(vii) Karuna Devi
2. Bal Krishna Pasi
3. State of Jharkhand
4. Baleshwar Ram... .... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.
-----
For the appellant(s): Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate.
------
07/14.07.2022: This appeal has been filed by appellant challenging the judgment
dated 26.2.2016, decree signed on 5.3.2016 passed by the District and Addl. Sessions Judge XII, Hazaribag in Title Appeal No. 20/2013 whereby, the appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed affirming the judgment dated 30.4.2013 and decree dated 9.5.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Hazaribagh in Title Suit No. 19/2000.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant under Order 41 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the courts below have failed to take into consideration that the land in question was settled in the year 1976-77 in favour of the appellant by the State. He further submits that the said settlement was challenged by the respondent -plaintiff before the revenue authority, but they failed and after such failure, they have approached the competent civil court for declaration of their right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. As per him, the suit itself is bad and is barred by limitation. He further argues that the appellant is in possession over the land in question, but this fact has also not been considered by both the courts below in true prospective. It is his case that the suit could not have been decreed especially, in view of settlement of land in favour of defendant in the year 1976-77.
4. The plaintiff, herein, filed the suit for declaration of his right, tile, interest and possession over the suit land as described in Schedule "A" of the plaint and further to restrain the defendants permanently from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land.
-2-5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the land involved in the suit was gairmajruwa land which belonged to the Ex-landlord. The Ex-landlord settled the land in question to one Vishnu Mahto. The land was measured and Fard Amin report was prepared on 12.2.1942 by the Ex-landlord and Hukumnama was granted on 20.2.1942 in favour of the plaintiff's ancestors. Said Vishnu Ram thereafter paid rent and salami and possessed the property in question and rent was also paid to Ex-landlord. After vesting of zamindari, the land was mutated in the name of the father of the plaintiff in register of the Government and in Register-II also. Said Vishnu Mahto paid rent to the State from the year 1954. It is the case that suddenly the defendants started falsely claiming the schedule property in their name by virtue of a settlement parcha granted to defendant Nos. 2 and 3, which necessitated in filing the suit.
6. The defendants appeared and claimed that the suit land was settled by the State in favour of defendant Baleshwar Ram in the year 1976-77. They denied the settlement of the land in favour of the plaintiff by Ex-landlord and it is their case that since they are in continuous possession of the land in question, it is wrong on the part of the plaintiffs to claim that they possessed the land prior to 1942.
7. The State appeared and admitted the fact that the land was settled in favour of the plaintiffs' ancestor and zamabandi was also opened and running since long in the name of the plaintiff's ancestor. They also admitted that the same was settled in the year 1976-77 in favour of the defendant-appellant. The Sub-Divisional Officer approved the said settlement and directed the Kramchari to hand-over the possession to the settlee. The Kramchari reported that the land is in possession of the plaintiffs and both the settlees in whose favour the government settled the land in the year 1976-77 were not living in the village. On the report of Anchal Adhikari, the Sub-Divisional officer through L.R.D.C recommended for cancellation of the settlement made in favour of the dependents.
8. Both the courts below after considering the evidence of the parties independently declared the right, title, interest and possession in favour of the plaintiffs holding that the settlement of the zamindar was correct and zamabandi which was open by the zamindar could not have been cancelled. Once the State recognized the settlement by zamindar and the possession of the plaintiffs and subsequent issuance of rent receipt by the State, the title over the property in favour of the plaintiff stands established.
-3-9. After hearing the counsel for the Appellant, I find that it is an admitted case that in the year 1942 the land was settled in favour of the plaintiff's ancestor by the Ex-landlord. It is also admitted that in Register-II, the name of the plaintiff's ancestor was opened recorded and State also accepted the same. Rent was also accepted by the State. That being the position, the State could not have further settled the land in the year 1976-77 in favour of defendants. Defendants claim possession over the land but it is the case of the State that when Kramchari went to give possession to the defendants, the defendants were not found in the village and it was found that the land was in possession of the plaintiff. This also clearly suggests that defendants were not possessing the said land, rather it was the plaintiff,who possessed the same.
10. The defendants are claiming title over the land by virtue of a settlement order made in their favour by the State. Counsel for the appellant claimed that the settlement order was not taken note of in proper prospective by both the courts below and the suit should have been dismissed considering the said settlement order.
11. I am not in agreement with the aforesaid contention. First of all, when the land was settled in the name of plaintiff's ancestor in the year 1942 and the State had recognized the said settlement by entering the name of the plaintiffs' ancestor in Register-II and also started accepting rent, the State could not have settled the land in favour of the defendants in the year 1976-77. The aforesaid settlement was made without cancelling the plaintiff's settlement, which was running in favour of the plaintiff, acknowledged by the State since long. If this Court accepts the contention of the appellant and acts upon the settlement granted in favour of the defendants by allowing this appeal, it will amount to reviving an illegal act, whereby, illegally the land was settled in favour of the defendants, without cancelling/setting aside the settlement made in favour of the plaintiff. No competent court of law has set aside the settlement made in favour of the plaintiff made in the year 1942 by the zamindar, rather the State has accepted the settlement and proceeded accordingly by accepting rent and entering the name of the plaintiffs' ancestor in the records.
12. Thus, the trial court has correctly decreed the suit and the appellate court has rightly dismissed the appeal.
13. I further find no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
Anu/-C.P.2. (ANANDA SEN, J.)