SURESHWAR PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND
LAWS(JHAR)-2018-7-247
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Decided on July 19,2018

Sureshwar Prasad Sharma Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GURVACHAN KAUR VS. SALIKRAM [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. - (1.)Heard the parties.
(2.)The unsuccessful plaintiff who was the appellant in the learned lower appellate court has filed this appeal under section 100 of the code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Gumla in Title Appeal No.20 of 2002 dated 04.09.2009 by which the learned lower appellate court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court by which the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
(3.)The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff is that the suit property was earlier owned and possessed by the T.D.L.A. company who was the recorded tenant of the suit property as per the revisional survey records of rights through its local agent and it was agreed to sale the suit property to the original plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 20,000.00. The original plaintiff paid Rs. 20,000.00 gradually to late Ram Narayan Agrawal who was managing the affairs on behalf of T.D.L.A. company but the registered sale deed could not be executed because of the death of Ram Narayan Agarwal. As per the terms of the said agreement for sale, the original plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property since the year 1950. After coming in possession of the suit property, the plaintiff constructed a house by investing Rs. 40,000.00 and also planted some trees over the suit land and continued to live there with all his family members. The son of the plaintiff namely Binod Kumar Sharma died in the said house because of snake bite in the year 1996. The only source of income of the original plaintiff was of selling milk and the original plaintiff was a landless person. The son of Ram Narayan Agarwal namely Tej Narayan Agarwal executed a sale deed on 27.10.1987 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land. The suit land is not a public land rather it is a raiyati land of the plaintiff after vesting of Zamindari as per the provision of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act. In the present survey, the possession of the plaintiff has been noted and the khata of the suit land has been made in the name of T.D.L.A. Company. The plaintiff perfected his title by way of adverse possession as he has been in possession over the suit land since 1950. The defendants were fairly trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit land and the defendant no.2 started an encroachment proceeding in the year 1985 which has been quashed by the Honourable High Court in C.W.J.C. No.967 of 1985 (R) and possession of the suit land was restored to the plaintiff. It was also averred that the order of the defendant no.2 in a proceeding under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act directing the plaintiff to vacate the suit land within 15 days from the date of the order dated 05.05.1987, was illegal. Though the plaintiff filed an appeal against the said order before the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla but the same was dismissed and the Revenue Revision No.139 of 1987 filed by the plaintiff against the order of the Deputy Commissioner was also dismissed. C.W.J.C. No.1229 of 1987 (R) filed by the plaintiff against the order of the revenue revision has been dismissed by this Court but the plaintiff asserts that the said order passed by this Court is illegal and without jurisdiction. The plaintiff filed the suit with a prayer to declare the order dated 05.05.1987 passed by the Circle Officer, Gumla in the case filed under Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, the order dated 14.05.1987 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla in Encroachment Appeal No. 3 R 15 of 1987-88, the order dated 09.06.1987 passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Gumla Revenue Revision No.139 of 1987 and the order dated 5/8.12.1987 passed by the Honourable High Court, Ranchi Bench confirming the order of the Circle Officer, Gumla as illegal, void and contrary to law and without jurisdiction and also prayed for restraining the defendants from permanently dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property. In their written statement, the defendants besides their usual defence averred that the suit land was not owned by the T.D.L.A. Company during the revisional survey nor it was managed by its local agents. It was also averred by the defendant-State that after vesting the estate to the government, no return with respect to the suit land was filed by the ex-landlord. Since, the T.D.L.A. Association vanished, the land left was parti and it vested in the State and became a part of the State thus, the character of the suit land became public land and as the land was transferred to the defendant no.3-Food Corporation of India for constructing godown, the land leased to the T.D.L.A. association, which after vanishing of T.D.L.A. company, was vested in the State Government. The defendant-State denied the agreement of sale for consideration of Rs. 20,000.00 by the agent of T.D.L.A. company with the plaintiff. The defendant-State also denied all other averments made by the plaintiff in the plaint and pleaded that the registered deed dated 27.10.1987 was illegal, void and without any consideration and hence, not binding upon the defendant as the executant of the said sale deed namely Tej Narayan Agarwal was not having any title nor possession over the suit land at any point of time. In its separate written statement, the defendant no.3 took the same defence as the defendant-State. The defendant no.3 further pleaded that the plaintiff himself admitted the possession of the State and prayed for settlement on a portion of the land.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.