Jharkhand High Court
Chairman-Cum-Managing Director vs Shibu Rawani on 11 October, 2022
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
1
S.A. No. 206 of 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.A. No.206 of 2002
------
1. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Bharat Coking Coal Limited at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. -Koyla Bhawan, District -Dhanbad.
2. Sr. Administrative Officer, Sijua, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, Area No.V, P.O. -Sijua, P.S. -Jogta, District -Dhanbad.
.... .... .... Appellants Versus
1. Shibu Rawani,
2. Debu Rawani, Both sons of late Jagu Rawani.
3. Gauri Rawani,
4. Sadhu Rawani, Sons of late Murli Rawani.
5. Ramchandra Rawani, son of Late Pustam Rawani.
6. Jailal Rawani, son of Late Manik Rawani.
7. Dalu Mahto, son of Late Tulsi Mahto
8. Bhanu Rawani, W/o Late Mahabir Rawani.
All residents of village -Madandih, P.S. -Loyabad, P.O. -Loyabad, District -Dhanbad.
.... .... .... Respondents
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Arbind Kr. Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Praveen Kr. Varma, Advocate : Mr. Baban Prasad, Advocate
------
PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
By the Court:-
1. Heard the parties.
2. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2002, passed by the Additional District Judge -VIII, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No. 44 of 1995 whereby and where under, in a judgment of reversal, the learned first appellate court has allowed the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs and ordered that the plaintiffs have got title and possession over the suit land and restrained the defendants permanently from interfering with the peaceful possession of the 2 S.A. No. 206 of 2002 plaintiffs by fixing electric poles for electric connection or by making construction over the suit lands or any portion thereof and further directed the defendants to remove the electric poles by uprooting them within a period of three months from the date of judgment, failing which, the plaintiff-appellants will be legally entitled to get the same uprooted through the process of the court; at the costs of the defendants.
3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the ancestors of the plaintiffs were the recorded tenants of the suit land and it is also the case of the plaintiffs that the suit land is a Raiyati land and the recorded tenants being the occupancy Raiyats, the ancestors of the plaintiffs have acquired indefeasible title thereon. The plaintiffs have described in detail their relation with the recorded tenants of Khata No.7 of Mouza Sendra, bearing plot no.265, the Khatiyan of which has been marked Ext.5. The plaintiffs inherited the suit land from their ancestors and continued in possession of the same by realizing usufruct thereto and by paying rent to the State of Bihar. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the recorded tenants reclaimed and converted the suit land into paddy land in due course of time and gradually cultivated paddy and other seasonal crops. It is next pleaded by the plaintiffs that the defendants in the year 1985 felt in need of some lands including Schedule -A land for the purpose of extension of their electric connection to be used in colliery and they intended to purchase the suit land and accordingly, the defendant no.2 wrote a letter to one Phagu Mahato to produce the relevant papers in connection with all the lands. It is then pleaded by the plaintiffs that in compliance of the aforesaid letter dated 07.09.1985, the plaintiffs submitted details of the lands and the names of the owners of the Schedule -A land and the plaintiffs claimed adequate price for the 3 S.A. No. 206 of 2002 land and also claimed for service to the unemployed which was duly received by the office of the defendant no.2 on 02.12.1985. The defendants assured the plaintiffs to pay adequate price of the land and service to the families of the plaintiffs before making any construction over the Schedule-A land but all of a sudden in July, 1986, without any right, title, interest and possession, the defendants stacked a good number of poles to install the same, over the suit land for extension of their electric connection. The plaintiffs along with other villagers seriously protested and objected to the high handedness and illegal act of the defendants which led to serious breach of peace. The plaintiffs asked the defendant no.2 to pay adequate price of the land and employment but the defendants on 10.07.1986 refused to pay price and service and attempted to install poles. The plaintiff no.7 -Dalu Mahto then reported the matter to the S.D.O., Dhanbad and on advice filed a petition before the S.D.O., Dhanbad upon which, a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C.
vide M.P. Case No. 1134 of 86 was instituted and the defendants were directed to maintain status-quo and an enquiry from the local police was called for. The defendants influenced the local police and the local police without holding spot enquiry and examining the plaintiffs and their documents submitted a false and ex-parte report against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs thereafter challenged the genuineness of the police report and made a petition before the S.D.O., Dhanbad and requested to call for another fresh enquiry report from any high officer and the S.D.O, Dhanbad called for an enquiry report from the C.O. The defendants were in hurry to get the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. disposed of as early as possible and the plaintiffs apprehend that they shall not get any relief in a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C., hence the plaintiffs filed 4 S.A. No. 206 of 2002 the suit with the following prayer:
(a) For a declaration of the plaintiffs' raiyati right, title, interest and possession of the suit property and confirmation of their possession thereon and in the alternative if the court finds that the plaintiffs are out of possession; For recovery of possession after removing stacked poles and other materials.
(b) For permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agent, representatives or anybody from going over and interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs by fixing poles for electric connection or by making any construction etc. over the schedule below land or any portion of it.
(c) For all costs of the suit.
(d) for any other and further reliefs which the plaintiffs are found entitled to under law and equity.
4. The defendants in their written statement besides challenging the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds pleaded that the plaintiffs had not acquired any title much less indefeasible title nor they are occupancy raiyats nor they were or are in possession; much less in actual physical and cultivating possession of the suit land. The defendants denied that defendant no.2 ever felt necessity of land including the suit land for the purpose of extending electrical connection as there is already a high voltage sub-station of Bihar State Electricity Board from before the nationalization and replacement of wiring work was being done through the poles in existence up to Tetulmari Colliery by the Bihar State Electricity Board through a contractor. The defendants denied that the defendant no.2 ever wrote any letter to Phagu Mahato. 5 S.A. No. 206 of 2002 The defendants pleaded that BCCL has got right, title, interest and possession over the suit land.
5. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court altogether settled the following nine issues :
(1) Has the plaintiff any cause of action for the suit? (2) Is the suit barred by the principle of Waiver, Estoppel and Acquiescence?
(3) Is the suit maintainable in its present form?
(4) Is the suit bad for non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties? (5) Is the suit barred by limitation?
(6) Is the suit barred under the provision of Specific Relief Act or Coking Coal Mines Nationalisation Act?
(7) Has the plaintiff any title to the land in suit?
(8) Is the story of plaintiffs' possession and dispossession true?
(9) To that relief or relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled?
6. The learned trial court first took up issue nos. 7 & 8 and considering the fact that the plaintiffs could not produce any rent receipts in respect of Khata No.7 and not relying upon Ext.1 which is the report of the P.W.1 an Amin; in a cryptic judgment without considering the evidence of other witnesses examined by the parties except the P.W.1 examined by the plaintiffs, decided the issue no. 7 & 8 against the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the learned trial court took up issue nos.2, 4, 5 & 6 together and in just one sentence has mentioned that these issues are ornamental, hence decided the same in negative. Thereafter, the learned trial court took up issue nos. 1 & 3 and observed that the plaintiffs have failed in proving their title over the suit land, hence there is no cause of 6 S.A. No. 206 of 2002 action for the suit and the suit is not maintainable in its present form. Lastly, the learned trial court took up issue no.9 and observed that as the main issues have been decided against the plaintiffs, hence the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief and consequently dismissed the suit on contest with costs.
7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial court being the court of Additional Munsif -1st, Dhanbad, in Title Suit No. 56 of 1986 dated 22.07.1995, the plaintiffs preferred Title Appeal No. 44 of 1995 in the court of Additional District Judge-VIII, Dhanbad which was ultimately heard and disposed of by the learned first appellate court vide the impugned judgment and decree.
8. The learned first appellate court made independent appreciation of the evidence in the record and observed that this is a suit based on documents. The first appellate court further observed that oral evidence has got less value in deciding the suit. The learned first appellate court first took up issue no. 7 & 8 and considered the evidence in the record in detail independently. The learned first appellate court relied upon Ext.5 which is the Khatiyan which shows the name of the ancestors of the plaintiffs as recorded tenants. The first appellate court also considered that the defendants could not show that the suit land was Bakasta land of the ex-intermediary of the Raja of Jharia. The learned first appellate court considered Ext.1, which is the report of the P.W.1 - Amin as well as his oral testimony and Ext.2 which is also the report of another Amin examined as P.W.2. The learned first appellate court also considered the State rent receipt which has been marked Ext.3 and the letter of the defendant no.2 which has been marked Ext. 4. The learned first appellate court also discussed in detail about the evidences of the 7 S.A. No. 206 of 2002 four witnesses examined by the defendants and considering the fact that the suit land is recorded in the name of the predecessors in interest of the present plaintiffs and their succession and inheritance of the suit land has not been denied by the defendants in their written statement and there is no document to show that the land has ever been settled to Sri Rai Srinath Pal Bahadur and subsequently to Sendra Coal Company and Hind Shippers, more over and above all the land of Khata No.7 is Raiyati Khata, hence there is no explanation by the defendants as to how the ex- intermediary could have settled the land of Raiyati Khata to Sri Rai Srinath Pal Bahadur and in the absence of any evidence contrary to the evidence produced by the plaintiffs which is far more superior then the evidence filed and brought on behalf of the defendant, the first appellate court held that the plaintiffs have got title over the suit land and they are in possession of the suit land. The learned first appellate court then took up issue nos. 2, 4, 5 & 6 and disposed of the same being not pressed. The learned first appellate court next took up issue no.3 and held that the suit as framed and filed is maintainable. The learned first appellate court next took up issue no.1 and held that the plaintiffs have valid cause of action for the suit. Lastly, the learned first appellate court took up issue no.9 and held that the defendants cannot be permitted to erect poles on the land of the plaintiffs and allowed the appeal and decreed the suit as already indicated above.
9. At the time of admission of this appeal, vide order dated 28.06.2004, the following substantial question of law was formulated:-
"Whether Lower Appellate Court has committed an error in reversing the findings on issue Nos. 7 & 8 recorded by the trial Court mainly relying on Ext.5?"8
S.A. No. 206 of 2002
10. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned first appellate court has committed an error of record by observing that the defendants have not denied the pleadings of inheritance of the property by the plaintiffs from their ancestors though in fact the defendants had denied the same. It is next submitted that the learned first appellate court has given over weightage to the documents in the record. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court be restored.
11. Mr. Manjul Prasad, the learned senior counsel for the respondents on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and decree and submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court is a cryptic judgment and the trial court neither considered nor discussed even the evidence of the witnesses examined by both the plaintiffs and the defendants and in a cryptic judgment, without any application of mind, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs and the same has been set aside by the first appellate court in a well discussed judgment for cogent reasons. It is next submitted that it is a settled principle of law that the pleadings made in the plaint has to be specifically denied and the mere pleading of the defendants in their written statement that the plaintiffs have not acquired any indefeasible right over the suit land can by no stretch of imagination be interpreted that such pleadings amounts to the defendants having denied the relationship between the plaintiffs and their ancestors in whose names the Ext.5 which is the Khatiyan is the evidence which also shows the possession of the ancestors of the plaintiffs and subsequently the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Hence, it is submitted that this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 9 S.A. No. 206 of 2002
12. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials in the record, this court finds that the trial court has not discussed the evidence brought on record by the parties; in deciding the issues and has not even mentioned as to how many number of witnesses were examined by the parties and which of the documents have been proved and marked exhibit by the rival parties and in a cryptic judgment merely mentioning that the plaintiffs could not produce any rent receipts in respect of Khata No.7 came to the conclusion that the issue nos. 7 & 8 are decided against the plaintiffs. The trial court thereafter disposed of the rest of the issues, in one sentence by observing that they are ornamental issues. The trial court has not even relied upon Ext.1 which is the report submitted by the P.W.1- the Amin. On the other hand, the learned first appellate court has considered the entire evidence in the record including the documents. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the pleadings of the defendants that the plaintiffs have never acquired any title much less indefeasible title or for that matter occupancy raiyats nor they were or are in possession much less in actual physical and cultivating possession certainly cannot amount to pleading to the effect that the same amounts to denying the relationship of the plaintiffs with their ancestors and recorded tenants which have been pleaded specifically in para-3 to 7 of the plaint. Thus in the absence of specific denial pleading that the plaintiffs are not related to their ancestors as it is settled principle of law that if the defendant has to make a specific denial plea the same must be pleaded by it directly and specifically, the objective of pleadings being giving the other side the requirement to be met by it while adducing evidence in respect of the particular plea taken by a party and which is not admitted by the 10 S.A. No. 206 of 2002 adversary party.
13. Under such circumstances, this Court finds that the first appellate court has not committed any error in reversing the findings on issue nos. 7 & 8 recorded by the trial court. As the learned first appellate court besides relying upon Ext.5, also considered the other evidence in the record as well as already mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment. Thus the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court cannot be termed perverse by any standard. Hence, the sole substantial question of law as to whether the Lower Appellate Court has committed an error in reversing the findings on issue Nos. 7 & 8 recorded by the trial Court mainly relying on Ext.5 mentioned above is answered in the negative.
14. In view of the discussions made above, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed on contest, but under the circumstances without any costs.
15. Let a copy of this Judgment along with Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned court below forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11th October, 2022 AFR/ Sonu-Gunjan/-