Mohan Lohar Vs the Stateof Jharkhand through the Collector East Singhbhum

2025:JHHC:36271

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

S. A. No. 389 of 2019

Mohan Lohar, aged about 58 years, son of Late Dhiren Lohar, resident of Sonari Basti, P.O. & P.S.- Sonari, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum.

¶5

… … Plaintiff/Appellant/Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand, through the Collector, East Singhbhum, Town- Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.- Sakchi, District- East Singhbhum.

¶8

Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd., a Corporate Body incorporated under the Companies Act, having its Head Office at Bombay House, P.O. & P.S.- 24, Homimody Street Fort, District-Mumbai, Mumbai and workshop at Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.- Sakchi, District- East Singhbhum

¶9

Nabnit Paswan, son of Late Dr. Suryadeo Paswan, resident of Qtr. No. 178, Road No:5, Sonari West Layout, P.O. & P.S.- Sonari, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum.

¶10

M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, a Corporate body having its Regd. Office, 17, Jamshedjee Tata Road, Tata Nagar, P.O.- Burma Mines, P.S. Burma Mines, Town-Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum.

¶11

… … Defendants/Respondents/Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

¶14

--For the Appellant : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Sr. Advocate : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate : Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Aman Kedia, Advocate : Ms. Trishna Sagar, Advocate For the Resp. No.1 State : Mr. Anup Kumar Agrawal, AC to GA-IV

¶15

¶16

15 /03.12.2025

¶17

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 25.09.2019 (decree singed on 07.11.2019) passed by the learned Principal District Judge, East Singhbhum in Civil Appeal No. 55 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the judgment dated 01.08.2018 (decree dated 06.08.2018) passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-II, Jamshedpur in Original Title Suit No. 37 of 1996 has been affirmed with certain modifications in the findings on the issues.

¶19

1

¶20

2025:JHHC:36271

¶21

3. The original title suit was dismissed by the learned trial court and the judgment of the learned trial court was affirmed by the learned 1^st appellate court. Consequently, the plaintiff is the appellant before this Court.

¶22

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial court while dismissing the suit on the one hand at various places has recorded the findings in favour of the appellant. He has submitted that the learned trial court has recorded in internal page No.32 of its judgment that upon death of Kali Charan Lohar (father of the plaintiff), the plaintiff inherited the suit land and thus possession of the plaintiff through his ancestors over the suit land is continuous, uninterrupted and within the full knowledge of defendant No.1 to 4 since 15.07.1940.

¶23

5. Learned counsel further referred to internal page No.36 of the judgment of learned trial court and has submitted that a finding has been recorded that in view of the legal backdrop it is crystal clear that Ratan Mahato being villager of village:- Sonari, where the suit land situated, converted the barren land into cultivable land in 1937-38 and therefore, he acquired occupancy right and became absolute right and title holder and thus, rightly sold the portion thereof to the grandfather of the plaintiff by virtue of sale deed for a value of Rs.90/- which is less than Rs.100/- and further recorded a finding in internal page 37 that mere entry in the records of right that the plaintiff is in illegal possession over the suit lands since 1989 cannot wipe out the possession of the plaintiff since 1940.

¶24

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that inspite of such clear finding recorded by the learned trial court, the suit was dismissed by holding that the vendor Ratan Mahato had not acquired better title over the government land which was under lease of TISCO Limited and there was no question of its devolution to the father of the plaintiff and after his death, to the plaintiff.

¶25

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned 1^st appellate court ignored the findings recorded by the learned trial court

¶26

2

¶27

2025:JHHC:36271

¶28

and dismissed the appeal and accordingly, it is submitted that a substantial question of law be framed and the appeal be admitted.

¶29

8. Though, at this stage there is no requirement to hear the counsel of the respondent State as the substantial question of law has not yet been framed in this second appeal, however, the learned counsel for the respondent State has referred to paragraph 9 of the appellate court’s judgment. He submits that the judgment of the learned trial court has been discussed by the learned 1^st appellate court and the judgment of the learned trial court be seen in the light of such discussion.

¶30

9. The suit was filed for the following reliefs:-

¶31

i. For a decree for declaration of title and confirmation of possession of the said land of the Schedule “C” and in alternative if in the meantime the plaintiff is ousted, for recovery of possession of the suit land. The description of schedule “A” has also been given in the plaint the original schedule B should be deleted and in the place schedule B should be written as follows schedule B

¶32

ii. For a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant no. 1 to 4 from ousting the plaintiff forcibly from the suit land, after declaring that the recording of the land in the name of State of Bihar and possession of defendant no. 4 by virtue of lease are incorrect.

¶33

iii. For a decree for costs of the suit.

¶34

iv. For any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff may be entitled.

¶35

10. The case of the plaintiff was that the schedule ‘A’ property was recorded in recent survey plot no. 3222/6084 and 3222/6829 under Khata No. 622 of Mouza Sonari of Ward no. 1 Jamshedpur Notified Area Committee, corresponding to portion of revisional survey Plot No. 455 of Khata No. 77 and the schedule ‘C’ property was a subject matter of this suit. It was asserted that in the revisional Survey Operation the schedule ‘B’, property was portion of R.S. Plot no. 455, a fallow land recorded as Anabd Malik (TISCO Ltd) with a total area of 93.72 acres.

¶36

3

¶37

2025:JHHC:36271

¶38

11. It was the specific case of the plaintiff that one Ratan Mahato a resident raiyat of village Sonari converted Schedule ‘A’ to cultivable land in the year 1938 and was in cultivating possession of the same. Kalicharan Lohar grandfather of the present plaintiff who was also a resident raiyat of village Sonari purchased the property in schedule ‘A’ by virtue of an un-registered deed of sale dated 15.07.1940 for a consideration of Rs. 90/- only and put him in possession.

¶39

12. It was further the case of the plaintiff that while in possession, Kalicharan had constructed a house over the schedule ‘A’ property which upon his death devolved upon his son, Dhiren Lohar and grandson Mohan Lohar (the present plaintiff). It was also asserted that the property was in possession of the plaintiff/their predecessor in interest adversely and to the knowledge of the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 4.

¶40

13. The plaintiff claimed that in the year 1968-69 the plaintiff had inducted four tenants in the house and during survey operation of 1970-71, the schedule ‘A’ property was wrongly recorded in the names of the plaintiff’s tenants to which the defendant no. 4, TISCO Ltd., filed a case under Section 83 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act being case No. 954 of 1986-87 against the said tenants where the plaintiff was also informed, but learned Assistant Settlement Officer recorded the land in the name of State of Bihar with illegal possession of the plaintiff since 1989. Thereafter, defendant no. 4 again filed case under Section 89 Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act against plaintiff for deletion of his name but the prayer was rejected. The case was registered as Case No. 754 of 91-92 for suit plot no. 3222/6084 . Defendant no. 4 also filed a case under Section 89 of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act with respect to plot No. 3222/6829 which was said to be pending before the Commissioner, Chotanagpur, Ranchi.

¶41

14. The cause of action arose when the plaintiff came to know that the father of defendant no. 2 had filed an application before the defendant no. 3 for grant of license to deal with petrol and diesel over the suit property and the same was granted to him but before any

¶42

4

¶43

2025:JHHC:36271

¶44

service station was opened, defendant no. 2’s father died and defendant no. 2 in consultation with the defendant no. 1 was trying to take forcible possession of the suit land by allowing the defendant no. 3 to build a service station and small office on the suit land for defendant No. 2. Consequently, the suit was filed.

¶45

15. It was the specific case of the plaintiff that they were in actual physical possession of the suit land by constructing residential house since more than 40 years on the basis of an unregistered sale deed dated 15.07.1940 and therefore, the defendant no. 2 or 3 could not take forcible possession. It was also asserted that the name of State of Bihar and possession of TISCO by virtue of lease are incorrect. The plaintiff claimed that they have also acquired right over the suit property by way of adverse possession.

¶46

16. The defendants filed written statement and disputed the claim of the plaintiffs. It was alleged that the unregistered deed of sale, if in existence, must have been fabricated and manufactured by the plaintiff. It was also asserted that Revisional Survey Plot no. 455 under Revisional Survey Khata no. 77 of Mouza Sonari, measuring 93.32 acres was recorded in the name of Anabad Malik khata during the Revisional Survey Settlement of 1934-37 and during the current survey, as per the order passed under Section 83 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, the land is in the name of Bihar Sarkar, under lease of Tata Iron & Steel Company Limited Lease with effect from 01.01.1956 and illegal possession of Mohan Lohar since 1989 has been recorded. It was also asserted that some portion of new plot No. 3222 has been recorded in the name of Bihar Sarkar and Tata Iron and Steel Company lease with effect from 01.01.1956 and classified as ‘SOUCHALAYA’.

¶47

17. It was also asserted that as a matter of fact, the suit land along with other land were acquired by the then Provincial Government through the Provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and title and possession of which were delivered to the defendant. It was also asserted that in the Revisional Survey Settlement of 1934-37 the suit

¶48

5

¶49

2025:JHHC:36271

¶50

land is recorded in the name of the defendant in its Anabad Malik khata for Plot No. 455, Khata No. 77.

¶51

18. The following issues were framed for the purpose of consideration:-

¶52

i. Is the suit as framed maintainable?

¶53

ii. Has the plaintiff got valid cause of action?

¶54

iii. Is the suit barred by law of limitation?

¶55

iv. Is the suit barred by the principle of waiver acquiescence and estoppel?

¶56

v. Is the suit barred under the provision of BPLE Act, CNT Act and Specific Relief Act?

¶57

vi. Is the sale deed executed by Ratan Mahato in favour of Kalicharan Lohar, a valid operative and genuine document?

¶58

vii. Did Kalicharan Lohar built a pucca house over the suit land?

¶59

viii. Does the suit land belong to the state of Bihar/Jharkhand and defendant no. 4 (TISCO Ltd.,) is the lessee of the same?

¶60

ix. Is the suit bad for want of notice U/s 80 C.P.C?

¶61

x. Is the plaintiff entitled to the reliefs claimed?

¶62

xi. Is the plaintiff entitled for any other relief/reliefs?

¶63

19. The perusal of the judgement reveals that the recording in page No. 32, 36 and 37 are essentially relatable to submission of the plaintiff and the findings of the learned trial court starts from paragraph 12 of the judgment.

¶64

20. Upon perusal of the findings, this Court finds that it has been clearly recorded by the learned trial court under paragraph 12(c) that the suit land was recorded as “Anabad Malik” since 1931 having lease right to company TISCO Ltd. In the plaint, the plaintiff had pleaded that vendor Ratan Mahto has acquired the suit land by cleaning forest and bushes from there, but at the time of argument the Lawyer for the plaintiff had taken a new facts that he (Ratan Mahto) had converted and acquired valid raiyati right over the same through ‘Korkar’. The learned trial court recorded that both the pleadings are contradictory in nature. Further, the learned trial court also recorded that neither plaintiff nor defendants have led any evidence in respect of the

¶65

6

¶66

2025:JHHC:36271

¶67

process of conversion of the suit land as ‘Korkar’. Plaintiff has also not proved this fact by subsequent relevant document in favour of the Ratan Mahto. It was an admitted fact that neither Ratan Mahto nor plaintiff or his predecessor-in-interest have ever paid rent for the suit land nor the State Government has regularized their possession through a valid document. It was also recorded that admittedly in the year 1971 during survey settlement the name of different persons were entered into record of right to whom the plaintiff claim as his tenant, but later on the entry was rectified and admittedly the plaintiff was shown under “illegal possession” over the suit land in recent survey settlement (Exhibit-15). The learned trial court recorded that the plaintiff claimed to be in peaceful possession since 15.07.1940, but the record of right shows that the possession was since 1989. The learned trial court ultimately recorded that the plaintiff has also failed to prove his title by way of adverse possession. The learned trial court further held that the plaintiff has failed to prove better title of vendor over the suit land by its conversion to ‘Korkar’. The learned trial court ultimately held that the sale deed executed by vendor Ratan Mahto in favour of Kali Charan Lohar was not a valid document to confer right, title and interest over the suit land in favour of plaintiff. The learned trial court also recorded that it was proved that, the suit land is property of State of Bihar/Jharkhand under lease of Company TISCO Ltd and that the plaintiff had miserably failed to prove his case and dismissed the suit.

¶68

21. The learned 1^st appellate court has also considered the materials on record and recorded in paragraph 16 that the dominant question for adjudication as to whether the plaintiff/appellant or his predecessor in interest had acquired any right, title or interest in respect of the suit land by virtue of Exhibit-1 was decided in the negative and the incidental question as to whether Ratan Mahato had acquired ‘Korkar’ right over the suit land was also decided in negative holding that Exhibit-1 was not a genuine document.

¶69

7

¶70

2025:JHHC:36271

¶71

22. While dealing with the judgment passed by the learned trial court, the learned 1^st appellate court recorded in paragraph 9 that the findings of the learned trial court were confused and substantially it was quoted from the written notes of argument which was furnished before the learned trial court. However, the learned 1^st appellate court after considering the materials has arrived at findings from paragraph 14 onwards.

¶72

23. During the course of hearing, specific query was put to the learned counsel for the appellant as to whether apart from unregistered deed of sale dated 15.07.1940 if there was any material on record to show that the vendor of the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property since 1940, to which, no positive response has been given.

¶73

24. Rather the impugned judgments clearly reveal that there is no material on record even to suggest that the vendor of the plaintiff had acquired any right through ‘Korkar’ and that thereafter, the property was given to the vendor of the plaintiff by the State through any instrument or that he was even in possession of the suit property.

¶74

25. Both the learned courts have discussed the materials on record and have given concurrent findings on the unregistered sale deed dated 15.07.1940 and held that the said document was not a genuine document. The record of rights and other materials placed on record also falsified the case of the plaintiff that his predecessor in interest had then conducted ‘Korkar’ and were in possession of the suit property since 1940 or even prior to that.

¶75

26. This Court finds that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove his case. Rather, the property was under TISCO lease given by the State in favour of TISCO and it was an admitted fact that the suit property was recorded as “Anabad Malik” since 1931 and TISCO was having lease hold right over the property.

¶76

27. The plaintiff having failed to prove his case and the materials placed on record are well discussed in the impugned judgement dealing. This Court is of the considered view that no question of law, much less any substantial question of law is involved in this case.

¶77

8

¶78

2025:JHHC:36271

¶79

28. This 2^nd appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶80

29. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the concerned courts through “Fax/e-mail”.

¶81

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶82

03.12.2025