Dismissed

Manoj Prasad Mathuri And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC11 Jul 2024SA/213/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal by plaintiffs whose suit challenging settlement of their land as ceiling surplus land to Scheduled Caste beneficiaries had been dismissed. The court found no substantial question of law: the Section 43 jurisdictional bar applied since no title-declaration or fraud was pleaded, and evidence beyond pleadings was inadmissible. Appeal dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Manoj Prasad Mathuri And Ors. Vs The State Of Jharkhand… — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No.213 of 2017

¶2

------

¶3

(Against the judgment dated 03.03.2017 passed by learned District Judge-II, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No.56 of 2012)

¶4

Manoj Prasad Mathuri,

¶5

Satrughan Prasad Mathuri,

¶6

Bharat Prasad Mathuri,

¶7

Sl. No.1 to 3 sons of Late Jagarnath Ram

¶8

Durga Prasad Mathuri,

¶9

Nakul Prasad Mathuri,

¶10

Ashok Prasad Mathuri,

¶11

Chhotan Prasad Mathuri,

¶12

Sl. No.4 to 7 sons of Late Chhattradhari Ram

¶13

Deleted

¶14

Sl. No.1 to 7 residents of Village: Amalkhori, P.O.: Singhdih, P.S.: Topchanchi, District: Dhanbad.

¶15

.... .... …. Plaintiffs/ Appellants/Appellants.

¶16

Versus

¶17

The State of Jharkhand

¶18

The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, P.O. + P.S. + District: Dhanbad.

¶19

Anchal Adhikari, Topchanchi, P.O. & P.S.: Topchanchi, District: Dhanbad.

¶20

Narayan Turi,

¶21

Dumar Chand Turi

¶22

Karam Chand Turi,

¶23

Sl. No. 4 to 6 sons of Late Puran Turi.

¶24

Lakhan Turi, S/o Late Gulu Turi,

¶25

Ram Sahi Turi, S/o Late Dukhi Turi,

¶26

Chhotu Turi, S/o Late Dukhi Turi,

¶27

Sl. No.4 to 9 residents of Village: Jaruadih, P.O. & P.S.:

¶28

¶29

S.A. No.213 of 2017

¶30

Hariharpur, District: Dhanbad

¶31

.... .... …. Defendants /Respondents/Respondents ------

¶32

For the Appellants : Mr. Ramchander Sahu, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Jai Prakash, AAG IA Ms. Omiya Anusha, AC to AAG IA

¶33

P R E S E N T

¶34

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶35

By the Court :- Heard the parties.

¶36

This Second Appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2017 passed by learned District Judge-II, Dhanbad in Title Appeal No.56 of 2012 whereby and where under the learned court below has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment dated 21.05.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division No. I, Dhanbad in Title Suit No.51 of 1990.

¶37

The brief facts of the case is that the plaintiffs filed Title Suit No.51 of 1990 for a decree that the suit property is not the surplus land and the defendants have no right to settle the same to Harijans and others and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their agents from interfering in any manner with the possession of the plaintiffs and cost of the suit.

¶38

The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the plaintiffs obtained Raiyati right by a sale-deed No.590 dated 24.01.1961 from the landlord of Nowagarh and took possession of the said purchased land by virtue of the sale-deed and are in peaceful occupation of the same by constructing house, well and using the remaining portions as garden which is surrounded by boundary wall. The

¶39

¶40

S.A. No.213 of 2017

¶41

plaintiffs then contended that though the defendants have no right to declare any portion of the suit property as surplus and/or ceiling area but they have settled the same to Harijans. The plaintiffs served a notice under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure to the defendants for redressal of their grievance but to no effect. Hence, the plaintiffs filed C.W.J.C. No.1191 of 1989 (R) in Ranchi Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court challenging the vires of the State Government in taking possession of the land and also distributing Parchas in respect of the part of the suit land to the members of the Scheduled Castes and others after rejecting the objection filed by the plaintiffs and others.

¶42

The case of the defendant Nos.1 to 3 on the other hand is that the suit land was recorded in Chakbandi Khatiyan in the name of Nil Kantha Narayan Singh. In accordance with the provisions of Bihar Consolidation of Holding and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956, the State Government initiated a proceeding under the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 against Nil Kantha Narayan Singh and a purported notification was issued under Section 15 (1) of the said act on 23.11.1978. The defendants also challenged the maintainability of the suit on various technical grounds. These defendants next pleaded that the suit land is not a Raiyati land now nor it was ever the Raiyati land of the plaintiffs. These defendants denied the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in question. These defendants further pleaded that the plots in question were found as excess of ceiling limit of the ceiling and was acquired by the State and was settled to the landless persons belonging to Scheduled Caste. The lands were acquired as per the Ceiling Act on 07.02.1997 at Janta Darbar at Topchanchi.

¶43

¶44

S.A. No.213 of 2017

¶45

The order for delivery of possession was passed and delivery of possession was given to the beneficiaries.

¶46

The defendant Nos.4 to 8 are the beneficiaries. They also challenged the maintainability of the suit.

¶47

On the basis of the rival pleadings, the learned trial court altogether

¶48

settled the following seven issues:-

¶49

(i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form?

¶50

(ii) Is the suit barred by law of Limitation?

¶51

(iii) Is the suit affected by principles of res judicata, estoppel and waiver?

¶52

(iv) Is the plaintiff entitled to a decree of the suit premises as surplus land of the State Government?

¶53

(v) Is the State Government has any jurisdiction to settle the suit premises to the strangers by disowning the long standing uninterrupted peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit premises?

¶54

(vi) Is the suit affected for want of the notice U/s 80 C.P.C.?

¶55

(vii) Is the plaintiff entitled for any other relief or reliefs for the just decision of the suit in favour of him?

¶56

In support of their case, the plaintiffs altogether examined six witnesses

¶57

and proved the documents which have been marked as Ext. 1 to 8. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 on the other hand examined one witness and the defendant Nos.4 to 8 examined eight witnesses, thus, altogether nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the defendants. The defendants also proved the documents which have been marked as Ext. A to C/2.

¶58

Learned trial court decided all the issues against the plaintiffs except the issue Nos. (ii) and (iii) which were not pressed and the suit was dismissed on contest.

¶59

In view of the rival submissions made before the learned first appellate court, the learned first appellate court formulated the following two points for

¶60

determination:-

¶61

¶62

S.A. No.213 of 2017

¶63

(1) Whether the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred U/s 43 of the Bihar Land Ceiling Manual or not?

¶64

(2) Whether the suit is maintainable or not?

¶65

The learned first appellate court considered that the claim of the plaintiffs is on the basis of the sale-deed which was marked Ext. 8 but the plot numbers mentioned in the said sale-deed were different from the plot numbers of suit land mentioned in the plaint. The learned first appellate court declined to accept the submission of the appellant before it to look to the evidence which were available in Ext. 4 which was a notice of a mutation case; as there were no pleadings regarding the same in the record. The learned first appellate court considered the provisions of Section 43 of the Bihar Land Ceiling Manual which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and held that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in Civil Court and after confirming the judgment of the learned trial court, dismissed the appeal.

¶66

Learned counsel for the appellants relies upon the judgment of the Single Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Basiruddin & Others vs. Bibi Khalique Khatoon & Others decided on 04.12.2013 in Second Appeal No.08 of 1998 wherein in the facts of that case where the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and possession over the suit property, the learned Single Judge of the Hon’ble Patna High Court observed that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 43 of the Ceiling Act to settle or decide or to deal with any question which is under Ceiling Act required to be settled decided or dealt with but there being no provision in the Ceiling Act that the matter relating to declaration of title or confirmation of possession or that the order obtained fraudulently without making the plaintiff as party in the land

¶67

¶68

S.A. No.213 of 2017

¶69

ceiling proceeding can also be decided by the authorities under the Ceiling Act and went on to hold that in that case the bar created under Section 43 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 is not applicable. It is next submitted that the learned first appellate court has committed a grave illegality by holding that the civil suit is not maintainable. It is next submitted that both the courts below have failed to take into account the pleadings made by the plaintiffs and could not properly appreciate the materials available in the record in their proper perspective. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below be set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs be decreed after formulating appropriate substantial question of law.

¶70

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that there is absolutely no merit in this appeal. It is next submitted that the facts of the case of Basiruddin & Others vs. Bibi Khalique Khatoon & Others (supra) are entirely different from the facts of this case as in this case, the plaintiffs have not prayed for any relief of declaration of title nor is there any allegation of fraud or that the ceiling proceeding was done without notice to the plaintiffs. So, under such circumstances, as the suit was filed with the limited prayer challenging the declaration of the land to be surplus, certainly such type of suit is barred under Section 43 of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961. It is next submitted that the learned courts below have not committed any illegality by not looking to the evidence in the absence of any pleading as it being a settled principle of law that evidence in absence of any pleading, is not admissible in law. Hence, it is submitted that this appeal, being without any merit, be dismissed.

¶71

¶72

S.A. No.213 of 2017

¶73

Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that as has rightly been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the facts of this case are entirely different from the facts of Basiruddin & Others vs. Bibi Khalique Khatoon & Others (supra) where suit itself was filed for declaration of title and possession. In this case there is absolutely no prayer for declaration of title or possession nor any fraud alleged to have been committed nor is it the case of the plaintiffs that the area of the land was held to be in excess; without notice to the plaintiffs rather it is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs took part in the proceeding, raised the objection, which was turned down and the land was held to be in excess.

¶74

Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that no illegality has been committed by both the courts below in holding that the civil suit is not maintainable.

¶75

So far as the contention of the appellants that the materials in the record has not been correctly appreciated by both the courts below and there is perversity in finding of fact is concerned, it is a settled principle of law that that perversity, so far as it relates to interfering with the findings of fact by exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 100 and 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding the relevant materials or by taking into consideration the irrelevant material or if the finding, so outrageously defies the logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the vice of being perverse, then the finding is rendered infirm in the eyes of law or if the finding of the court is based on no evidence or evidence, which is thoroughly unreliable or the evidence that suffers from

¶76

¶77

S.A. No.213 of 2017

¶78

the vice of procedural irregularity or the findings are such that no reasonable person, would have arrived at those findings then the findings may be said to be perverse, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur vs. Punjab State Electricity Board & Others reported in (2010) 13 SCC 216 para-28 of which reads as under :-

¶79

“28. If a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then the finding is rendered infirm in the eye of the law. If the findings of the Court are based on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable or evidence that suffers from the vice of procedural irregularity or the findings are such that no reasonable person would have arrived at those findings, then the findings may be said to be perverse. Further if the findings are either ipse dixit of the Court or based on conjecture and surmises, the judgment suffers from the additional infirmity of nonapplication of mind and thus, stands vitiated. (Vide Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan [(2010) 11 SCC 483 : AIR 2010 SC 2685].“

¶80

and the same has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India

¶81

in the case of Bharatha Matha and Another vs R.Vijaya Renganathan & Others reported (2010) 11 SCC 483 and which has also been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of K.N. Nagarajappa and Others vs. H. Narasimha Reddy reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 694 .

¶82

Now, coming to the facts of the case; as already indicated above, there is absolutely no pleading of the plaintiffs that the suit land is the new plot number and it has any old plot number. In the absence of such pleading, obviously any evidence put forth to the extent that the suit plot has a plot number is certainly not admissible in evidence; being in contravention of fundamental principle of civil procedure has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para-10 in the case of Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal & Anr ., reported in (2008) 17 SCC 491 and in this backdrop, no

¶83

¶84

S.A. No.213 of 2017

¶85

perversity can be alleged to have been committed by the learned first appellate court in not taking into account some evidence which were beyond the pleadings of the parties in the record.

¶86

Thus, this Court is of the considered view that there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal, being without any merit, is dismissed.

¶87

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶88

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 11^th of July, 2024 AFR/ Animesh

¶89

¶90

S.A. No.213 of 2017

Manoj Prasad Mathuri And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Manoj Prasad Mathuri And Ors. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Israil Vs Nageshwar Ganjhu Nagendra

Md Akbar Khan Vs Arun Kumar Mahto And Ors.

Prabhu Oraon Alias Prabhu Pahan And Anr. Vs Chandar Oraon And Ors.

Mahesh Yadav Alias Mahesh Mahato Vs Sahdeo Mahato

Kuldip Narain Vs Meghan Mahto

Suneshwar Prasad Gupta and Ors. Vs Smt.Sheomaniya Devi And Ors.

What is this about?

What is this about?

A compact analysis

Mohammad Israil Vs Nageshwar Ganjhu  Nagendra

Md Akbar Khan Vs Arun Kumar Mahto And Ors.

Prabhu Oraon Alias Prabhu Pahan And Anr. Vs Chandar Oraon And Ors.

Mahesh Yadav Alias Mahesh Mahato Vs Sahdeo Mahato

Kuldip Narain Vs Meghan Mahto

Suneshwar Prasad Gupta and Ors. Vs Smt.Sheomaniya Devi And Ors.

Mohammad Israil Vs Nageshwar Ganjhu Nagendra