Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Her Heirs And Legal Representatives ... vs Government Of India (Union Of India) & ... on 13 September, 2021
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
1 05 13.09.2021
SA 287 of 2010 AN Ct. No. 04 SAT 3862 of 2001 I.A. No.: CAN 1 of 2006 (Old No.: CAN 3039 of 2006) (not found) Smt. Charubala Jana (Deceased) Her heirs and legal representatives Smt. Gouri Jana & ors vs. Government of India (Union of India) & anr. Mr. Shyama Prasad Purkait Ms. Moumita Mandal ... for appellants Mr. Purkait, learned advocate appears on behalf of substituted appellants and submits, original appellant was plaintiff in the suit for declaration and injunction. Her husband came to live in Diamond Harbour, in year 1937 and thereafter started his legal practice in the criminal Court. They used to reside in suit land with permission of Gopal, Gangadhar and Sailaja Nanda, heirs of Shyamal Charan Nanda, who had taken the land by Bandobast from the Railways. The C.S.R.O.R. carries record of the Nandas, in respect of suit land. Some of the Nandas sold their interest to husband of deceased original appellant. Inter alia, on erroneous entry in R.S.R.O.R., recording Railways as in possession of suit land, the suit was filed. Contention of original deceased appellant at trial was adverse possession and title against all the defendants, who severally claimed suit land.
We have perused the judgments. Both Courts below did not find in favour of appellant but, for different reasons. The trial Court found the Nandas had title to possess suit land and husband of deceased original 2 appellant had entered into permissive occupation. This permissive occupation could have converted itself to part rightful and part adverse occupation from the dates of conveyances, lastly on 26th February, 1966. However, this too could not be held in favour of original deceased appellant because she was claiming under the Nandas, the latter's claim by Bandobast specifically denied by the Railways. The learned trial Judge held that if the Nandas' Bandobast or tenancy was good then original deceased appellant was also a licensee under the Nandas. The claim of adverse title thus rejected.
The lower appellate Court, as aforesaid, gave different reasons being that the Nandas never got any Bandobast from the Railways. If that is so, then the Nandas and thereafter husband of original deceased appellant, had all occupied suit land without authority. Title by adverse possession of government land is perfected on 30 years while against private persons, 12 years. There does not appear to be any dispute that deceased original plaintiff or her husband came to occupy suit land prior to or by year 1940.
The lower appellate Court said, inter alia, as follows:
"It is claimed by the plaintiff that she has acquired title by way of adverse possession of the suit land. The possession of the suit land by the Nandas or the plaintiff, as the case may be, is unlawful possession and an unlaw-ful possession can never mature into title. The possession in order to be matured into title must be inter alia one as of right as distinguished 3 from unlawful possession."
We admit the appeal on following question to be answered.
"Cannot unlawful possession mature into title by continuous adverse possession of prescribed period, against claim of owner?"
Call for the records. Appellants will put in requisites for preparing paper books and issuance of notice of appeal.
Liberty to mention before the learned single Judge having determination for hearing of the appeal, when made ready.
(Arindam Sinha, J.) (Sugato Majumdar, J.)