Judgment 1. Plaintiff in title suit No. 18/45 of 1963/68 of the Court of Additional Munsif I, Patna has moved this Court in appeal against the judgment and decree in Title Appeal No. 133/12 of 1969/71 of the Court of Additional Subordinate Judge II, Patna, under which he has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif declaring the plaintiff-appellants title over the land described in the schedule at the bottom of the plaint and directing the defendants to deliver possession thereof; by removing construction therefrom. 2. The appellant is a house construction society at whose behest 261/2 decimals of land out of plot No. 708 under khata No. 732 and plot No. 1839 under khata No. 797 in village Mainpura, police station Digha, district Patna was acquired by the State Government in accordance with the provisions under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") in Land Acquisition case No. 10 of 1956-57 vide declaration No. 7974 dt. 15-10-1955 published at page 339 in part II of the Bihar Gazette dt. 2-11-1955. The award with regard to plot No. 1839 was prepared in the name of Khairu Lal and compensation was awarded to him. One Md Yasin, however, objected to the award made in favour of Khairu Lal and the amount of compensation determined under S.18 of the Act. A reference was made by the Land Acquisition Officer, Patna, to the District Judge, Patna, which was numbered as Land Acquisition case No. 305 of 1956-57 which was eventually transferred to the file of Additional District Judge, Patna. In the said reference defendant No. 1 appeared and raised claim that he was entitled to the compensation. He was added as a party but subsequently he gave up the contest and his claim was rejected. In the meanwhile a title suit started between Md. Yasin and Khairu Lal, and the enhanced compensation, if any, awarded in the land acquisition case was ordered to be paid to the successful party, in the title suit. The plaintiff took possession over an area of 131/2 decimals of parti land of plot No. 1839. 3. Dispute, however, arose at the time of delivery of possession. Defendant No. 1 was holding a sweetmeat shop in a portion of plot No. 1839. Since that formed part of the acquisition it required action under S.47 of the Act. The plaintiff took possession over an area of 131/2 decimals of parti land of plot No. 1839. 3. Dispute, however, arose at the time of delivery of possession. Defendant No. 1 was holding a sweetmeat shop in a portion of plot No. 1839. Since that formed part of the acquisition it required action under S.47 of the Act. A proceeding under S.47 of the Act was accordingly started which is pending before the Sub-divisional Officer, Patna, against defendant No. 1. It is alleged by the plaintiff that taking advantage of the absence of plaintiffs representatives and agents defendant No. 1 started expanding his encroachments and constructed a wall further south of his shop on 5-1-1959. This was detected by one Bisheshwar Jha, Amin and the local Police was informed on behalf of the plaintiff. A proceeding under S.144 of the Criminal P.C. was started but the same could not be concluded and ended with the expiry of the statutory period of 60 days. Defendant No. 1 persisted with his encroachments for which a petition was filed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on behalf of the plaintiff on 13-4-1959 and a fresh proceeding under S.144 of the Criminal P.C. was started. This proceeding was converted into a proceeding under S.145 of the Criminal P.C. For making further construction even during the pendency of the proceeding under S.145 of the Criminal P.C. a petition for action under S.188 of the Code as also a regular complaint for the offence under S.448 of the Penal Code was filed on behalf of the plaintiff against defendant No. 1 Defendant No. 1, however, succeeded in the proceeding under S.145 of the Criminal P. C. and was acquitted in the case under S.448 of the Penal Code. Plaintiff by such wanton acts of defendant No. 1 stood dispossessed from an area of 18 dhurs of land of plot No. 1839 lying south of the shop aforesaid. The proceeding under S.145 of the Criminal P.C. was disposed of on 29-1-1960. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the instant suit. 4. The case of the defendants, inter alia, is that the defendants have been coming in possession over the land after constructing their pucca house for the last more than 20 years and they acquired title by adverse possession. They are running a shop of sweet-meat only in a portion of the said building. Plaintiff illegally tried to dispossess them. 4. The case of the defendants, inter alia, is that the defendants have been coming in possession over the land after constructing their pucca house for the last more than 20 years and they acquired title by adverse possession. They are running a shop of sweet-meat only in a portion of the said building. Plaintiff illegally tried to dispossess them. No notice in the land acquisition proceeding was ever served upon them. They are in possession of the land legally and acquired title by adverse possession. 5. In the land acquisition proceeding while award for the payment of compensation was made in the name of Khairu Lal for a sum of Rs. 575/- a further award of a sum of Rs. 575/-was made in the name of Kesho Sah (defendant No. 1 respondent No. 1). Defendants have denied to have any knowledge of the said award, 6. Defendants also questioned the delivery of possession of 131/2 decimals of land in plot No. 1839 to the plaintiff. They alleged that they were living in their house since long but when they found that the plaintiffs agents were creating trouble in the suit land they purchased the same by a registered sale deed in the year, 1956 from the recorded tenant. Thus, according to them their possession upon the land in dispute was not unauthorised and the plaintiff was not entitled to dispossess them even through the processes of the court 7. The trial court accepted the plaintiffs lease of delivery of possession over 131/2 decimals of land in plot No. 1839 and decreed the suit according to law for recovery of possession and removal of unauthorised constructions. Before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, however, the controversy took a pew turn. Although it had been feably contended before the learned Munsif that the land acquisition proceedings were not legally taken out but the learned Munsif found sufficient evidence to sustain the plaintiffs claim. Before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, however, the controversy took a pew turn. Although it had been feably contended before the learned Munsif that the land acquisition proceedings were not legally taken out but the learned Munsif found sufficient evidence to sustain the plaintiffs claim. Before the learned Additional Subordinate Judge the defendants in their appeal contended that the plaintiff could succeed only by proving that there has been a valid land acquisition pursuant to which delivery of possession was given to it, and that the plaintiff could prove his title and possession only by proving that there has been a valid notification under S.4 of the Act followed by the notice as required therein, inquiry under S.5 A and declaration under S.6 of the Act in accordance with the provisions so made. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that there has been a notification under S.4 as also a declaration under S.6 of the Act, that the Land Acquisition Officer was directed by the State Government under S.7 of the Act to proceed with the acquisition of the land, the plaintiff deposited the stipulated cost of acquisition and the delivery of possession was given to it. Yet the learned Additional Subordinate Judge found fault in the plaintiffs case on two counts. According to him the plaintiff was required to prove that there has been a public notice as contemplated under S.4 of the Act which it failed to do and since for the purposes of the Act the plaintiff is a company within the meaning of S.3(e) of the Act, it was required to establish that the acquisition was made pursuant to an agreement as required under S.41 of the Act and that also the plaintiff failed to prove. 8. In the appeal before me Mr. Parmeshwar Prasad Sinha learned counsel for the appellant, has contended that the court of appeal below has gone beyond the issues involved in the suit to imagine a technicality, which, if called upon the plaintiff could have proved. He has submitted that there is always a presumption in law that the actions taken in accordance with law by the competent authority are validly taken and one who disputes the validity of such actions, is required to prove otherwise. He has submitted that there is always a presumption in law that the actions taken in accordance with law by the competent authority are validly taken and one who disputes the validity of such actions, is required to prove otherwise. In the instant case, the defendants, who disputed the fact that notice had been issued or S.41 of the Act was complied with were to prove that these were not done. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, has contended that it is well settled that a person claiming declaration of his title must prove his title beyond doubt and in the instant case the two vital ingredients of establishing the validity of the land acquisition were not established by the plaintiff and since it was not possible for the courts below to hold that the land had been validly acquired in the absence of the proof in this regard the court of appeal below has rightly held that the plaintiff has failed to prove its title. 10. I am rather surprised by the ingenuity of the approach of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge and the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents. The defendants have admitted that there has been a land acquisition proceeding followed by a delivery of possession. Their case all the while has been that the land upon they lived and carried their business by running a sweetmeat shop had been in their possession for more than 20 years followed by a sale deed obtained by them from the recorded tenant in the year 1956, that is to say, after the notification under S.4 and the declaration under S.6 of the Act. How could then one imagine that the defendants were entitled to raise any dispute as to the validity of the land acquisition and the validity of the transaction between the State Government and the plaintiff? The plaintiffs title is not dependent upon how the State Government conducted the proceeding under the Act and/or how the rights of the owners were determined. It is totally dependent upon the document of delivery of possession of the land acquired by the State Government for it. There is no dispute that after the acquisition the State Government delivered possession of the land acquired for the society to the society. It is totally dependent upon the document of delivery of possession of the land acquired by the State Government for it. There is no dispute that after the acquisition the State Government delivered possession of the land acquired for the society to the society. True, defendants have maintained that they continued their possession but they have themselves said that their possession was that of a trespasser. To the extent defendants were found in possession at the time of delivery of possession of the acquired land to the plaintiff (51/2 dhurs) it is admitted that a proceeding under S.47 of the Act is pending. 11. Despite the acquisition and delivery of possession to the plaintiff the defendants continued their adverse possession is a plea which they alone have to prove. This plea has got no concern or relation with the acquisition of the land. Learned counsel for the respondents has taken me through serveral decisions on the question of proof including the case in Sarasvati Charan Singh V/s. Suraj Deo Narain Singh, ILR 7 Patna 167 : (AIR 1928 Patna 367). I find nothing in this case which in any way touches the question involved in this appeal. It is true that a person must prove that he did everything that the law required him to do, as indicated in Sarasvati Charan Prasad Singhs case (supra). I am of the definite view that a party to a civil proceeding cannot be asked to prove what some other persons had to do under a law. Proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were taken out by the State Government. The State Government or its agents alone therefore, are competent to answer any charge of violation of any provision of the Land Acquisition Act. If the defendants genuinely desired to charge the State Government of violation of any provision of the Land Acquisition Act they could do so by questioning the validity of the land acquisition in an appropriate proceeding. Having not done so, the defendants in my view, cannot ask the company (the plaintiff) collaterally to answer for the State Government. The other case cited by the learned counsel for the respondents is also not on the point in issue. Having not done so, the defendants in my view, cannot ask the company (the plaintiff) collaterally to answer for the State Government. The other case cited by the learned counsel for the respondents is also not on the point in issue. In Jagdish Narain V/s. Said Ahmed Khan, AIR 1946 PC 59 what is stated is that the plaintiff cannot be relieved of the burden of proving his title in a suit for ejectment without any reasonable cause. This proposition of law has got absolutely no application on the issue which I am presently considering. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents has taken me through the authorities of the Supreme Court laying down that in the absence of an agreement as required under S.41 of the Act acquisition for the purpose of a Company is not a valid acquisition and a notice to the party as provided under the Bihar Amendment of the Act is necessary before a declaration under S.6 of the Act is made. All these could have been of substantial use to the defendants had they questioned the validity of the land acquisition. In a suit for ejectment at the instance of a party which has become entitled to the property by virtue of the land acquisition and transfer in its favour they cannot be allowed to raise such a dispute collaterally. In my considered view the learned Additional Subordinate Judge has committed error of law in going to the question of validity or otherwise of the land acquisition proceeding on the face of the pleadings of the parties. 13. There has been some controversy before me as to whether the 51/2 decimals of land in respect of which the proceeding under S.47 of the Act is going on, is included in the suit land or not. It is obvious that the defendants-respondents cannot be evicted from that 51/2 dhurs of land upon which they were found in possession at the time of delivery of possession of the acquired land to the plaintiff until the proceeding under S.47 of the Land Acquisition Act is completed. It is obvious that the defendants-respondents cannot be evicted from that 51/2 dhurs of land upon which they were found in possession at the time of delivery of possession of the acquired land to the plaintiff until the proceeding under S.47 of the Land Acquisition Act is completed. The plaintiff, however, is entitled to maintain the suit and since defendants-respondents have not been able to show any right to continue in possession on any other portion of the land in dispute they are liable to be ejected and the constructions made by them have to be removed except from the said 51/2 dhurs of land. The respondents have neither shown that they have acquired title by adverse possession nor shown that they have any semblance of title in respect of the land in dispute. The plaintiff, on the other hand, has been able to prove that the defendants have encroached upon its land. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge has committed error of law in setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Munsif on the grounds indicated above. 14. In the result this appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge II, Patna, in Title Appeal No. 133/12 of 1969/71 are hereby set aside, and that of the learned Additional Munsif, Patna, in Title Suit No. 18/45 of 1963/68 are confirmed subject to the modification that defendants 1 and 2 shall not be evicted from 51/2 dhurs of land which is the subject matter of the proceeding under S.47 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Patna. The appellant shall be entitled to costs of the proceeding payable by the respondents. Hearing fee, Rs. 250.00 only.