Dismissed

Lalit Saraogi and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand Represented through D C Seraikella Kharsawan and Anr.

Jharkhand HC22 Jul 2019SA/109/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal challenged the dismissal of a title suit regarding adverse possession claims over state land. The High Court upheld the lower courts' finding that bare long possession, without evidence of holding in one's own right, does not constitute title by adverse possession, dismissing the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

Lalit Saraogi and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand… — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

S.A. No. 109 of 2013

¶3

Lalit Saraogi

¶4

Gauri Shankar Agarwal

¶5

Ashok Kumar Saraogi @ Ashok Saraogi

¶6

Smt. Meera Devi

¶7

Smt. Uma Lodha ............... Appellants.

¶8

-Versus-

¶9

1. The State of Jharkhand, represented through D.C. Seraikella-Kharsawan. 2. The Circle officer, Gamharia, Seraikella. ............. Respondents.

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANDA SEN.

¶11

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr.D.K. Maltiyar, A.C to S.C. Mines.

¶12

08/22.07.2019: Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed challenging the judgment dated 18.3.2013 and decree dated 2.4.2013 passed by the learned District Judge-II, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Title Appeal No. 20/2010, by which, the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed and the judgment dated 31.8.2010 and the decree dated 9.9.2010 passed by the learned Munsif, Seraikella in Title Suit No. 49 of 2006/15 of 2003 was confirmed.

¶14

The plaintiffs are the appellants in this appeal. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the State for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit land on the basis of their continuous possession. Prayer has also been made to confirm their possession and in the alternative, if it is found that the plaintiffs have been dispossessed, their possession be restored. The plaintiffs have also prayed for restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and prayed that the respondents cannot disturb their possession and demolish the house of the plaintiffs. The claim of the title is based on adverse possession.

¶15

As per the plaintiffs, village Adityapur falls within the territory of erstwhile princely State of Seraikella. The plaintiff was an old resident of village Adityapur in the seraikella State and the suit land was recorded under Anabad Khata of Seraikella State. The plaintiff was in possession of the said premises since 1935 on payment of rent and other taxes to the State of Seraikella. After independence, the State of Seraikella merged with Union of India and thereafter with the State of Bihar and became a part of the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand). The suit land was wrongly recorded in the name of Bihar Government as Kaabil Aabad in the revisional survey. Later on, the suit land fell within R.S. Khata No. 17, Ward No. 6, Aditypaur Notified Area Committee and during the survey, the possession of the plaintiff was recorded but Khata was recorded in the name of Bihar Sarkar (State of Bihar). It is the case of the plaintiff that one Banku Bihari Agarwal @ Banku Bihari Kedia, who is

¶16

the relative of the plaintiffs was also possessing some adjacent area. The plaintiff handed over all his documents to him in good faith as he was looking after the survey works during the settlement of 1983. The said Banku Bihari Kedia got R.S. Plot No. 5, 6, 7A, 8 and 9 corresponding to Plot No. 1431 of 1964 survey record in his name in the year 1983 with possessory note in the name of Banku Bihari Agarwal. The plaintiff stated that the said recording is wrong as the plaintiff was in possession and a house and shop was constructed there since 1935. It is further stated that with continuous possession over a long period, the plaintiff acquired title by adverse possession. The plaintiff states that there are several documents which suggest that the plaintiff is residing there such as Land Encroachment Proceeding was initiated in the year 1997-98 being case No. 10/1997-98 at the instance of the grand-son of Banku Bihari Agarwal with respect to some adjacent land. The plaintiff however, vacated the area as per the order of the authority under the Act. The plaintiff thereafter filed an application for fixing fair rent in which the Kramchari and C.O. found long standing possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that the State Government as well as the Administration is taking steps to demolish the plaintiff’s house, which was constructed over the land in question, which gave a cause of action to file the suit.

¶17

After notice, the State appeared and filed their written statement denying all the claims made by the plaintiff. The State accepted that the land was previously under the Princely State of Saraikella, ruled by Raja. They stated that after the merger within the Union of India and thereafter erstwhile the State of Bihar, the land was vested with the State. The State in their written statement took a plea that the description of land is vague as the specific description of the land has not been mentioned. The State denied the title of the plaintiffs and also submitted that the plaintiffs have not perfected title by adverse possession.

¶18

On the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed 09 issues, out of which, Issue Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the utmost importance in this case, which are as follows;

¶19

(6) Is the plaintiffs entitled for right, title and interest over the suit land as described in Schedule A of the plaint?

¶20

(7) Is the plaintiffs entitled for confirmation of possession of the suit land and in the alternative for recovery of possession if the plaintiff is found disposed during the pendency of the Suit?

¶21

(8) Is the plaintiffs entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs and demolishing the plaintiffs' house standing in the suit land?

¶22

Both the trial court and the appellate court gave a concurrent finding that the plaintiffs have got no right, title and interest nor have perfected their title by adverse possession. Both the court below meticulously examined the evidences of

¶23

the parties and found that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any relief(s). 8. Counsel for the appellants submits that both the courts below have wrongly arrived at the said finding. He further submits that admittedly the plaintiffs are in possession over the land in question since long and thus it can be said that the plaintiff has perfected their title by adverse possession. He also submits that there are several documents to prove that the plaintiffs are in possession like case record under the Essential Commodities Act initiated against them showing that they are residing in the land in question the food grain licence showing the address of the suit land and other documents.

¶24

After hearing the parties and going through the judgment of both the court below, I find that even if the plaintiffs have remained in possession of the land in question for considerable period of time, it cannot be said that by virtue of long possession, the plaintiffs have perfected their title over the land in question. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they have perfected the title by way of adverse possession. This clearly goes to suggest that the plaintiffs do not have any title over the land in question, rather, only on the basis of possession over the land for a long period are claiming title over the land in question. There is nothing on record to suggest that the plaintiffs are holding the land as of right and in their own right and in denial to the title of the State. The plaintiffs are only claiming long possession which cannot by itself is sufficient to declare title by adverse possession. Both the court below thus have correctly held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title over the suit land and therefore their claim of title over the suit land by adverse possession cannot be declared. The concurrent finding of fact cannot be disturbed in this second appeal. Further the courts below had correctly applied the law in relation to adverse possession in his case.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid facts, I find no illegally in the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed upholding the judgment dated 18.3.2013 and decree dated 2.4.2013 passed by the learned District Judge-II, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Title Appeal No. 20/2010.

¶26

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

¶27

Anu/C.P.2

Lalit Saraogi and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand Represented through D C Seraikella Kharsawan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Lalit Saraogi and Ors. v. the State of Jharkhand Represented through D C Seraikella Kharsawan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tajim Ansari And Anr. Vs Sahadul Mian And Ors.

Ranjit Rabidas Alias Ranjeet Rabidas Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shakil Ahmad Alias Sonu Khan Alias Sonu Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Usman Khan Vs Dhruba Jyoti Guha

Shiv Kumar Sao And Anr. Vs Kunal Chakraborty

Beni Madhav Mishra Vs Smt Chandrawati Devi and Ors.