The Patna High Court dismissed a miscellaneous appeal challenging a trial court order that rejected a suit for declaration of title based on adverse possession. The judgment upholds the finding that the land is government acquired property and the appellants are encroachers.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Appeal No.1097 of 2017
======================================================
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar,Advocate For the Respondent/s : Ms. Shobha Chaubey, AC to GP 19 ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 15-12-2022
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as also the
State.
is/are as follows:
Patna High Court MA No.1097 of 2017 dt.15-12-2022 2/7
“The 15th January 1918,- Whereas it appears to the Lieutenant -Governor in counsel that land is required to be taken by Government at the Public expense for a public purpose viz for the construction of Government offices and staff quarters in the Village of (1) Mahuli, Thana No. 6(a) Dhakanpura, Thana No. 7(3) Bharanllapur thana No. 5, (4) Paharpur, thana No. 14, (5) Badhappara, Thana No. 15, (6) Dhirachak, Thana No. 16, (7) Chit Kohra, thana No. 17 (8) Yarpur, Thana No. 18 and (9) Mithapur, Thana No. 19, in thana Phulwari ZillaPatna, it is hereby declared that for the above purpose a piece of land measuring more or less 9,425 bigha and 18 collahs of standard measurement, equivalent to 3,116 acres bounded on the-
North- By the southern boundaries of Village (1) Dujara, Thana No. 3, (4) Mainpur, Thana 2.
East- by the western boundaries of village- Bankipur Thana No. 21 and Aurra Thana No. 20
South- By the mutual distributory West- By the eastern boundaries
Patna High Court MA No.1097 of 2017 dt.15-12-2022 3/7
of village (1) Bhaikpura, thana No. 9, (2) Samanpura, Thana 12 (3) Auti Karhar, Thana No. 13 (4) old Phulwari, Thana No. 35,
Is within the aforesaid villages of (1) Mahuli, (2) Dhakanpura, (4) Paharpur, (5) Badhampura, (6) Dhira Chak, (7) Chitkohra, (8) Yarpur and (9) Mithapur.
This declaration is made under the provision of section 6 Act I of 1394 to all whom it may concern.
A plan of the land may be inspected in the office of the Collector of Patna.
J.H.Karn
Secy. To the Govt. of Bengal”
Patna High Court MA No.1097 of 2017 dt.15-12-2022 4/7
simple encroachers. The further submission of the State was that one of the plaintiff, appellant no. 4, Rajendra Prasad Singh was an employee of the Building Division, Patna and by virtue of being an employee, he was occupying one of the staff quarters and after retirement as he had no other place of accommodation was allowed on compassionate ground to over stay and thus that it cannot be a case of adverse possession.
“Heard both sides and perused the suit record. On perusal of the same it transpires that the plaintiffs have filed this suit for declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit land. The plaintiffs have stated in their petitions that they are in physical possession over the suit land more than 30 years and invested huge amount in construction. Photo copy of letter issued by department vide letter no. 6758 dated 30.11.2017, order of District Magistrate, Patna vide letter no. 6753 dated 03.11.2017. The defendants stated that the plaintiffs have no right title over the suit land and suit property absolutely belong to the defendants. They are in possession since last 50 years over the suit land. The defendants filed copy of reply from Shri Saligram Prasad Estate Officer, Building Construction Department asserting the property in the suit is government property and
Patna High Court MA No.1097 of 2017 dt.15-12-2022
5/7
also containing direction of Hon'ble High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 0515/2015 letter dated 18.07.2017 written by Estate Officer to Executive Engineer Building Construction, Patna Division. The suit land has been acquired by the State Government vide notification no. 198 (A) dated 15.01.2012 published in Calcutta Gadget of page 49 total measuring an acre 1612.025 of the purpose of different planning. Plot no. 111, 112 and 113 are the land of defendants. Hence for above discussions, it is clear that there is no prima facie case is made out for petitions filed dated 28.07.2017 and 31.10.2017 under Order XXXIX Rule 1,2 and Section 151 C.P.C. So petitions filed on behalf of the plaintiffs dated 28.10.2017 and 31.10.2017 Under Order XXXIX Rule 1,2 and Section 151 C.P.C. are hereby rejected.”
the appellants is/are that being in occupation of the said land for more than 30 years, they are entitled to the relief sought for by virtue of adverse possession. It is to be noted that the learned Court has observed that at one stage, they said that the they are in possession of the suit land for 50 years at other place they said 80 years and finally in the appeal they have come down to 30 years.
Patna High Court MA No.1097 of 2017 dt.15-12-2022
6/7
Patna High Court MA No.1097 of 2017 dt.15-12-2022 7/7
I.A. No. 6710 of 2018
In view of the fact that the M.A. No. 1097 of 2017 stands rejected, the I.A. No. 6710 of 2018 has become infructuous and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Jagdish/Neha/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 16.12.2022 |
| Transmission Date | NA |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the appeal filed to challenge the order declining a claim for title possession based on alleged adverse possession.
Arun Kumar Srivastava and Ors
The State Of Bihar and Ors
Rajiv Roy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
