Dismissed

Suresh Kumar Agarwal and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand Represented through Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Jharkhand HC15 Jul 2019SA/335/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This second appeal was dismissed as the appellants failed to prove their title to the suit land. The court held that evidence showed the predecessor's entry was cancelled under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act via an unchallenged order, and no proof existed for acquisition from the ex-ruler.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal under Section 100 CPC was dismissed; the lower court's judgment and decree dismissing the suit for declaration of title were upheld.

Suresh Kumar Agarwal and Anr. Vs the State of Jharkhand… — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

S.A. No. 335 of 2015

¶3

----

¶4

Suresh Kumar Agarwal

¶5

Rajesh Kumar Agarwal Both sons of late Jagadish Prasad Agrawal, resident of Khombari, Adityapur, P.O. & P.S. Adityapur, District Seraikella-Kharsawan.

¶6

… Appellants

¶7

-versus-

¶8

The State of Jharkhand represented through Deputy Commissioner, Seraikella-Kharsawan, at Gourangdih, P.O. & P.S. Seraikella, District Seraikella-Kharsawan.

¶9

Circle Officer, Gamharia, P.O. & P.S. Adityapur, District SeraikellaKharsawan.

¶10

Durga Devi Agarwal wife of late Om Prakash Agarwal

¶11

Rita Kumari Agarwal daughter of late Om Prakash Agarwal

¶12

Madhu Kumari Agarwal daughter of late Om Prakash Agarwal

¶13

Priti Kumari Agarwal daughter of late Om Prakash Agarwal

¶14

Pawan Kumar Agarwal son of late Om Prakash Agarwal

¶15

Pankaj Kumar Agarwal son of late Om Prakash Agarwal All residents of Khombari Adityapur, P.O. & P.S. Adityapur, Distt. Seraikella Kharsawan.

¶16

… Respondents

¶17

¶18

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN

¶19

----

¶20

For the Appellants : Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Sr. S.C.III Ms. Moushmi Chatterjee, A.C. to Sr. S.C.III

¶21

¶22

5/ 15.07.2019 This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellants challenging the judgment dated 31.03.2015 (decree signed on 07.04.2015) passed by District Judge-II, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Title Appeal No.06 of 2009 by which the title appeal preferred by the appellants was dismissed and the judgment dated 28.01.2009 (decree signed on 10.02.2009) passed by Munsif, Seraikella in Title Suit No.59 of 2007, whereby the suit was dismissed, was affirmed.

¶23

2. The plaintiffs are the appellants herein. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of their right, title and interest over the suit land and also for confirmation of their possession. They also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land.

¶24

3. The plaintiffs claim that the suit land described in Schedule ‘A’ previously belonged to one Alimuddin Khan, who acquired the same along with other lands, sometime in the year 1942 from the Ruler of ex-estate of Seraikella. It is their claim that the possession was handed over and the

¶25

-: 2 :-

¶26

same was recorded in khatian. The name of Alimuddin Khan was entered in the demand register maintained by the State and rent was realized regularly, thus, the defendants have accepted Alimuddin Khan as raiyat. Said Alimuddin Khan sold lands to one Krishna Kumar Choudhary on 06.03.1982 by a registered deed of sale. Said Krishna Kumar Choudhary, in turn, sold the lands to plaintiffs No.1 and 2 along with their elder brother, by executing a sale deed bearing No.3177 dated 07.12.1990 upon accepting valuable consideration amount. The plaintiffs obtained permission from the Urban Land Ceiling Authority under the Act and constructed a building. Inspite of the fact that the plaintiffs had acquired valid right, title, the defendants tried to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land on a mistaken notion that the land is a public land. In the year 1992, a proceeding under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act was initiated against one Radhe Shyam Khandelwal, who also purchased lands from Alimuddin Khan. Said Radhe Shyam Khandelwal approached the Hon’ble High Court challenging the proceeding initiated under the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act and the Hon’ble High Court quashed the encroachment proceedings after holding that Alimuddin Khan was raiyat in relation to plot No.1243. In the Survey Settlement Operations of the area, final publication was made in 1983 and the land was recorded in the name of Alimuddin Khan, but, a proceeding under Section 90 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act was instituted, which was registered as Case No.136 of 1986-87, wherein the entry in the name of Alimuddin Khan was challenged and an order exparte was passed on 18.10.1995 whereby the entry recorded in the name of Alimuddin Khan was cancelled. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants are trying to demolish the building and trying to dispossess them.

¶27

4. Defendants-State appeared and filed their written statement and have taken a plea that Alimuddin Khan never acquired the suit land from the ex-ruler of Seraikella Estate. Land was parti land of ex-ruler and after vesting of Seraikella Estate with the Union of India, land vested with the Government. Their case is that defendants never accepted Alimuddin Khan as raiyat and Alimuddin Khan had no right to transfer the suit land to Krishna Kumar Choudhary, thus, subsequent sale in favour of the plaintiffs is also bad. It is also the case of the defendants that the order of the charge officer under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act has not been challenged and have attained finality.

¶28

-: 3 :-

¶29

5. On the pleadings, seven issues were framed by the Trial Court. Issue No.5 was in relation to the right, title and interest of the plaintiffs. Five witnesses were adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs and few documents were exhibited. The defendants also examined one witness. The Trial Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit, holding that the plaintiffs have got no right, title and interest over the suit property.

¶30

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs preferred a title appeal. The appeal was also considered by the First Appellate Court and the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal.

¶31

7. Counsel for the appellants submits that the certified copy of the khatian clearly suggests that Alimuddin Khan, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs was recognised as raiyat and thus, sale of the land by Alimuddin Khan cannot be doubted. He submits that since Alimuddin Khan had right, title and interest over the property in question, the suit should have been decreed. It is submitted that the order passed in a writ application filed by Radhe Shyam Khandelwal suggests that Alimuddin Khan was accepted as a raiyat and, thus, the State cannot take a plea now that Alimuddin Khan was not a raiyat. It is submitted that the order passed by the charge officer is exparte and will have no relevance so far as the right of the appellants is concerned.

¶32

8. After hearing the parties and going through the judgments of both the Courts below, I find that both the Courts below have concurrently held that the plaintiffs have no right, title and interest over the landed property. I find that the State has challenged the right of Alimuddin Khan. In the proceeding under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, the charge officer cancelled the recording in the khatian, which showed Alimuddin Khan to be the raiyat. The said order passed by the charge officer, though exparte, was never challenged by any aggrieved person. The plaintiffs, if they were aggrieved, should have challenged the said order, but, they chose not to do so. Now in this background, it was for the plaintiffs to show, by sufficient evidence, that Alimuddin Khan had acquired the land from the ex-ruller. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to show that the land was acquired by Alimuddin Khan from the ex-ruller. It is only on oral statement it is submitted that the land has been acquired by Alimuddin Khan. Further, no record has been filed to show that competent authority had ordered

¶33

-: 4 :-

¶34

opening of jamabandi. The plaintiffs claim that in an Urban Land Ceiling Case being U.L.C. Case No.500 of 1990-91, he was permitted to construct the house, but, the said order was also not brought on record. In view of the aforesaid background, the Courts below have rightly held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that Alimuddin Khan had valid title, which can be transferred by him in favour of the vendor of the plaintiffs. Both the Courts, thus, have disbelieved the case of the plaintiffs. The documents, which were filed by the plaintiffs, were considered and interpreted by the Courts below. In this case, I find that the entire case of the plaintiffs is based on the facts, which they failed to prove. Both the Courts below concurrently found that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their right, title and interest over the suit property including settlement in favour of Alimuddin Khan by the Ex-Ruler.

¶35

9. Thus, in view of the concurrent finding of facts, no relief can be granted to the appellants in this second appeal. This second appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶36

( Ananda Sen, J.)

¶37

Kumar/Cp-02

Suresh Kumar Agarwal and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand Represented through Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Agarwal and Anr. v. the State of Jharkhand Represented through Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanthi Rai Vs the State of Jharkhand

Baby Devi Alias Radha Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prakash Mohali Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Zamil Vs Debu Bangali

Jawahar Lal Prasad Vs Gulab Chand

Basant Sahu Vs Laxman Sahu and Ors.