State of Bihar appealed concurrent decrees declaring plaintiffs' title over land recorded in their favour via sale deeds, mutation, and survey proceedings, on which a police station was built without acquisition. Second appeal dismissed at admission stage under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC, no substantial question of law arising.
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 SECOND APPEAL No.74 of 2016
======================================================
Versus
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. K.P. Gupta, GP-10 Mr. Virendra Kuar Ac to GR-10 For the Respondent/s : Mr.Bishwa Nath Chaudhary, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER
8 02-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and
Patna High Court SA No.74 of 2016(8) dt.02-07-2024 2/8
learned cousnel for the respondents.
Patna High Court SA No.74 of 2016(8) dt.02-07-2024 3/8
22.06.1970 to Kapoor Chand Jain, Phoolchand Jain, Dharamchand Jain and Tarachand Jain. During the pendency of the suit, all the four original plaintiffs, namely, Kapoor Chand Jain, Phoolchand Jain, Tarachand Jain and Dharamchand Jain had died, and their heirs and legal representatives were duly substituted in their place.
Patna High Court SA No.74 of 2016(8) dt.02-07-2024 4/8
Bihar forcefully started construction over the disputed land for the purpose of a construction of Buniadganj Police Station over the land given in Schedule-II of the plaint without being acquired which was protested by the plaintiffs, but the State of Bihar did not care to look into the documents of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were constrained to send notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the State Authority and after elapse of statutory period, the plaintiffs filed the present suit under appeal for the relief of declaration of Title over the suit land and also for ejecting the principal defendants from Schedule-II land and restoration of possession and permanent injunction against the principal defendants.
Patna High Court SA No.74 of 2016(8) dt.02-07-2024 5/8
has held that the property described in Schedule-I of the plaint are not disputed one; the State of Bihar also concedes this fact. The property of the Schedule-II land of the plaint are part of Schedule- I land which is in dispute. The learned lower appellate court has held that the State of Bihar has not filed any chit of paper in support of their title and possession over the suit land. The defendants/ appellants have examined two witnesses; DW-I, who is the circle inspector, Manpur. The said defendant witness no. 1 in his cross- examination stated that he has not seen any paper of plaintiffs/ respondents and admits rent receipts granted to the plaintiffs/ respondents. DW-2, is the Karmchari, who also could not support the case of the appellants/ defendants and admitted that the land mentioned in Cadestral Survey khatiyan in the name of Gopal Sharan and Rani Bhuneswari Kuer as Mokraridar and at that time Mokraridar had power to settle the land. The appellate court has affirmed the finding of the learned trial court regarding title and possession of the suit land, and also held that learned trial court has rightly and legally appreciated the facts and evidence produced by both the parties and passed judgment accordingly and no illegality is found in the judgment passed by the learned trial court. Accordingly, the appellate court dismissed the
Patna High Court SA No.74 of 2016(8) dt.02-07-2024
6/8
appeal.
Patna High Court SA No.74 of 2016(8) dt.02-07-2024 7/8
were granted receipt of payment of rent separately ( Ext-1 to 1/z) Ext-10 is a certified copy of order passed in Section 15 of Bihar and Orissa Municipal Survey Act in favour of the plaintiffs. Ext- 12 is a correction slip which shows the mutation of the disputed land in the name of the plaintiffs/ respondents.
Patna High Court SA No.74 of 2016(8) dt.02-07-2024 8/8
disposed of.
N.K/-
(Khatim Reza, J)
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiffs proved title over the disputed suit land against the State of Bihar.
Whether any substantial question of law arose for determination in the second appeal.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
The State of Bihar
Collector Gaya
Anchal Adhikari
Arun Kumar Jain and Ors
Khatim Reza
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
