amended plaint. However, the only argument of the respondent-State in connection with Schedule A(b) property is that there is no foundational pleading with respect to the Schedule A(b). This Court finds that in the plaint itself, it has been stated that the entire property, interalia , covered by Schedule A(a) and Schedule A(b) was covered by the hukumnama . The learned 1st appellate court held that though the plaintiffs had acquired right, title and interest by virtue of hukumnama but their right, title and interest ceased to exist upon coming into force of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and entry was made in the revenue survey record of rights as being ‘gair -majurwamalik’ land and the same vested in the State. This Court finds that so far as Schedule A(a) of the property is concerned, the same vested in the State by virtue of Section 4 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 as three tanks ( shairat ) are situated on Schedule A(a) as discussed above but so far as Schedule A(b) property is concerned, it is not the case of the respondent-State that the same vested in the State by virtue of Section 4 of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and it is not their case that there was any tanks ( shairat ) over Schedule A(b) property. The learned 1st appellate court has completely failed to make distinction between Schedule A(a) and Schedule A(b), though both were covered by the same hukumnama , in as much as Schedule A(a) had tanks ( shairat ) but Schedule A(b) had no tanks ( shairat ). Even as per the written statement tanks were situated only in Schedule A (a) property. This Court also finds that the raiyati rights of the plaintiffs was duly recognised by the State with respect to Schedule A(b) property over which the plaintiffs have also been paying rent and their raiyati interest over the property in connection with Schedule A (b) did not vest with the State by virtue of Section 4 read with Section 6 (b) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. The learned 1st appellate court in spite of holding that hukumnama was valid in the eyes of law, has failed to consider that the shairat / tank as claimed by the defendant-State was falling only under Schedule A (a) property of the plaint and it did not cover the property under Schedule A (b) of the plaint.
