Jadunandan Yadav v. Ram Pati Yadav — 1987 DIGILAW 313 (PAT)

JUDGMENT : K.B. Sinha. J. This appeal is directed against the JUDGMENT : and decree of the 1st Addl. District Judge, (Land Acquisition Judge) Gaya by which it has been held that respondent-applicant has got title and possession over the land in dispute and thus he alone is entitled to receive the amount of compensation calculated in the award given by the Collector to the exclusion of the appellant-opposite party. 2. The disputed land covers an area of three decimals out of the total area of six decimals of land of plot no. 3166 appertaining to khata no. 1263 situated in village Kako P.S. Jehanabad, Gaya. A vast track of land, including the part of the disputed plot, was acquired by the State of Bihar for construction of Nataul Branch Canal under Uderasthan irrigation scheme. A joint award was prepared in the name of the appellant-opposite party and the respondent-applicant by the Land Acquisition Officer, Collector under Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act') for a sum of Rs. 226.84 only. 3. The appellant-opposite party claim title and possession over the disputed land on the basis of settlement made by the ex-landlord in favour of his father Dasain Gope. His further claim is that rent receipts were issued by the ex-landlord in the name of his father and the Zamindari return was also submitted showing his father as the Raiyat (tenant) of the disputed land. After settlement by the landlord, his family has been in peaceful cultivating possession of the land and so only he is entitled to receive the amount of compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. A demarcation case was filed by the respondent-applicant in connection with the disputed plot in which he did not succeed, and a direction was given to him to file suit in the Civil Court for adjudication of his title and possession but he did not choose to get it decided by a competent Civil Court. 4. The case of the respondent-applicant is that the said plot was settled with him by the ex-landlord and in token of which a Hukumnama was granted to him. After settlement, he came in possession of the land and rent receipts have been issued to him by the ex-land, lord as well as by the State of Bihar upto the year 1969-70. After settlement, he came in possession of the land and rent receipts have been issued to him by the ex-land, lord as well as by the State of Bihar upto the year 1969-70. His further case is that the appellant-opposite party has neither title nor any concern with the said land. In the revisional survey, the disputed plot was recorded in the name of the respondent-applicant without any objection from the appellant-opposite party. As the award was prepared jointly in the name of the parties, the respondent-applicant filed objection before the Land Acquisition Officer and the later in his turn made reference to the District Judge Gaya under section 30 of the Act. 5. After receipt of the reference, Land Acquisition suit no. 58 of 1970 was registered in the court of District Judge, Gaya. It was eventually transferred to the court of the Ist Additional District Judge, who was vested with the power of the Land Acquisition Judge, Gaya where it was numbered as T.S. no. 2 of 1972 and was finally heard and decided in favour of the respondent and hence this appeal. 6. Both the parties have claimed title and possession over the land in dispute on the basis of settlement made by the ex-landlord. From the ORDER :of reference, made by the Collector, it is clear that Ramapati Yadav, the respondent raised objection disputing the right, title and possession of Jadunandan Yadav, the appellant-opposite party. No rejoinder appears to have been filed by the appellant before the Land Acquisition Officer. Both the parties produced documentary as well as oral evidence in the court of the Land Acquisition Judge, Gaya. 7. Mr. Sukumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, assailed the JUDGMENT : mainly on two grounds. His first contention was that the impugned JUDGMENT : was based on misrepresentation of evidence, which caused great prejudice to the appellant. It was also contended that the court below failed to appreciate the legal aspects of the case and thereby came to erroneous conclusion. Mr. S.K. Mazumdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent urged that, there was absolutely no basis for preparing the joint award in the name of the appellant with the respondent as Jadunandan Yadav did not produce any reliable document. Mr. S.K. Mazumdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent urged that, there was absolutely no basis for preparing the joint award in the name of the appellant with the respondent as Jadunandan Yadav did not produce any reliable document. The oral evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant was disbelieved by the learned trial court and thus the impugned JUDGMENT : did not call for any interference. 8. It is significant to note that both the parties claimed to have acquired the land on the basis of the Hukumnama issued by the ex-landlord but none of them produced Hukumnama either in the court below or in this Court. Both the parties adduced only oral evidence to prove the settlement. The learned Additional District Judge disbelieved the oral evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant as well as that of the respondent on the point of settlement of the disputed land by the ex-landlord. What mainly weighed with the Additional District Judge was the rent receipts produced by the respondents issued by the ex-landlord as well as by the State of Bihar and also the notices (Ext. 2 and 2A) issued in his name under section 9 of the Act. The rent receipts have been proved by A.W. 1 Bachu Yadav as Exhibit 1 to 1/K. Out of them, Ext. 1/J and 1/K are the receipts for the Fasli 1351 and 1352 granted by the ex-landlord and the rest have been granted by the State of Bihar from the year 1954-55 to 1970-71 for 72 decimals of land of Khata no. 1620 and 1623. In all the rent receipts granted by the State at the top, it is mentioned "without prejudice" except in Ext-1 which is for the year 1970-71. 9. Mr. Mazumdar appearing on behalf of the respondent strenuously argued that it was rightly held by the learned court below on the basis of the rent receipts that the respondent was in exclusive possession of the disputed land and he alone, was entitled to get the amount of compensation. According to him this was the most proper legal approach to the issue in question when in the opinion of the learned Additional District Judge the parties failed to establish their title over the land by producing Hukumnama. According to him this was the most proper legal approach to the issue in question when in the opinion of the learned Additional District Judge the parties failed to establish their title over the land by producing Hukumnama. In support of this contention reliance was placed on the case of Manche Anege Akue v. Manche Koju Ababio (A.I.R. 1927 Privy Council 262) In which it has been held that : "The appeal might be decided on the further ground that in as much as the land was, when taken by the Government, in the exclusive use and occupation of the alatas, the appellant must in ORDER :to succeed, establish that he has a better title than the respondent; in other words, that the onus is entirely on him and that he wholly falls to discharge himself thereof." In other words it has been held that where at the time of acquisition the land in question is found to be in the sale and exclusive possession of one person, that person is prima facie entitled to the compensation money and any other person claiming the amount of compensation must prove a better title in himself. 10. Mr. Sinha appearing on behalf of the appellant did not dispute and perhaps could not have disputed the proposition of law laid down in the said case. It was argued by him that the appellant had produced better evidence of his title over the disputed land but the learned court below completely failed to appreciate the same. Therefore, the primary question which falls for the consideration is as to which of the two parties has got better title to the land in dispute. Admittedly no Hukumnama was filed on behalf of the respondent. He produced rent receipts issued by the ex-landlord and the State of Bihar. As mentioned above, in all the rent receipts issued by the State of Bihar, except Ext-1, it is mentioned at the top "without prejudice". According to the appellant the said rent receipts were not, perfect proof of title and possession of the respondent over the disputed land because they were issued with some reservation as would appear from the writing "without prejudice", The said expression "without prejudice was subject matter of consideration in the case of Umesh Jha v. The State and another (B.L.J.R. 1956 Vol. 4,230) by a Division Bench of this Court. 4,230) by a Division Bench of this Court. An argument was advanced in that case that the State was not entitled to challenge the genuineness and validity of the settlement having accepted the rent from the petitioner in the Fasli 1361 and granted receipt for the same. In that case also it was an admitted position that the rent was accepted by the State of Bihar from the petitioner for Fasli 1361 without prejudice and this fact was noted on the receipt itself. Their Lordships after due consideration held as follows: “...........It is the admitted case of the parties that the rent that was accepted by the State of Bihar from the petitioner for the year 1361 Fasli was accepted without prejudice and this fact was noted on the receipt itself. That being so, there is no force in the argument that the State of Bihar was estopped from challenging the genuineness and validity of the settlement under section 4 (h) of the Act. The words "without prejudice" import into any transaction that the parties have agreed that as between themselves the receipt of money by one and its payment by the other shall not of themselves have any legal effect on the right of the parties, but they shall be open to settlement by legal controversy as if the money had not been paid. (See Words and Phrase, Permanent Edition, West Publishing Company, Volume 45, page 439). This contention of the petitioner has, therefore, to be rejected as being without any merit. 11. So the payment of rent by the respondent to the State of Bihar could not have any legal binding effect on the appellant. That was a monetary transaction between the respondent on the one hand and the State of Bihar on the other. The respondent, Rampati Yadev, was examined as AW. 3 in the trial court. He admitted that no proceeding or case was fought between the patties for mutation of his name in the revenue records of the State Government with regard to the plot in question. There is no material on the record to show as to how the name of the respondent was entered in the revenue record of the State government on the basis of which the rent receipts were issued. There is no material on the record to show as to how the name of the respondent was entered in the revenue record of the State government on the basis of which the rent receipts were issued. No other document except the rent receipts have been filed on behalf of the respondent to substantiate his claim of title and possession over the disputed land. 12. As regards the appellant, in view of the argument put forward on his behalf it has to be seen whether the finding of the court is based on misrepresentation of the facts and incorrect reading of the documents produced on his behalf. Ext. A is the extract of the return submitted by the ex-landlord in which the name of Dasain Gope, the father of the appellant, is shown in the column prescribed for entry of the name of the Raiyat. The original Zamindari return, submitted by the ex-landlord, was brought from the custody of the Deputy Collector incharge, Land Reforms and was produced in the trial court by OPW-3 Mithlesh Prasad Sharma. OPW-4 Hakim Ashraf is a formal witness who proved the relevant entry in the said document which is Ext-A. The Jamabandi was filed by the ex-landlord namely Md. Harish and Bibi Mahboob Bandi in the 1361 Fasli. The disputed plot no. 3136 appertaining to khata no. 1623, having an area of 42 decimals, has been shown in the name of the father of the appellant. It has been observed by the learned trial court that in the columns just above and just below the said entry, khata no. 1621 is mentioned in the name of Desai Gope and Ballabh Gope but the parentage of Dasain Gope has not been written and that is the reason for rejecting this document. 13. In course of argument, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant referred to several entries of the Jamabandi and urged that the learned trial court misread the documents. From plain reading of Ext-A, it is clear that plot no. 3161 appertaining to khata no. 1621 has been shown in the name of Dasain Gope, son of Sheocharan Gope and thereafter plot no. 3166 appertaining to khata no. 1623 is mentioned in the name of the same person. In the next column, below the said entries, plot no. 3161 appertaining to khata no. 3161 appertaining to khata no. 1621 has been shown in the name of Dasain Gope, son of Sheocharan Gope and thereafter plot no. 3166 appertaining to khata no. 1623 is mentioned in the name of the same person. In the next column, below the said entries, plot no. 3161 appertaining to khata no. 1621, has been shown in the name of Ballabh Gope Son of Ganesh Gope. So there is absolutely no ambiguity regarding the name of the Raiyat and the parentage and the plots mentioned in the return, submitted by the ex-landlords. It appears that some confusion cropped up in the mind of the learned Additional District Judge, because of the fact that he tried to read two columns as one. At a number of places in the said document, several plots owned and possessed by one Raiyat has been shown at one place continuously in two or more columns instead of mentioning the name of the same Raiyat against each plot. 14. Two rent receipts, one for the Fasli 1960 (Ext. B) and the other for the Fasli 1353 (Ext. B/1) were filed on behalf of the appellant. Both the rent receipts stand in the name of Dasain Gope son of Sheocharan Gope. According to the learned trial court, the said rent receipts did not bear the signature either of the landlord or of the Tahsildar. This finding also appears to have been given without proper examination of the documents. Besides, the said two rent receipts, the third one was also issued in the name of the father of the appellant for the year 1952 which has been marked as Ext-B/2 but it was not taken into consideration by the trial court. All the rent receipts have been issued for an area of 42 documals of land situated in khata no. 1623. On the back of Ext-B the employee of the ex-landlord, Gulam Samdani has signed in Urdu. On Ext. B/1 and B/2 signature of the employees can be seen on their face towards bottom of each receipt in kaithi script. The rent receipts have been proved by O.P.W. 4 Hakim Ashraf. He has stated that Ext-B is in the pen of Gulam Samdani and Ext-B/2 is in the pen of Purosottam Lal. He has further stated that Ext-B/1 is in the pen of Musafir Singh. The rent receipts have been proved by O.P.W. 4 Hakim Ashraf. He has stated that Ext-B is in the pen of Gulam Samdani and Ext-B/2 is in the pen of Purosottam Lal. He has further stated that Ext-B/1 is in the pen of Musafir Singh. It may be mentioned here that with regard to the writing of Ext. A, he denied the suggestion of the respondent-petitioner that the name of the father of Dasai Gope was not mentioned in it. So the finding of the learned court below that the receipts did not bear the signature of the Tahsildar and the landlord is obviously incorrect. 15. O. P. W. 4 Hakim Ashraf also proved the relevant Lagit submitted by the ex-landlord on the basis of which case no. 33/LR was instituted in the office of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms. It was submitted in the Fasli 1361 and has been marked as Ext-D. In this document also plot no. 3166, appertaining to khata no. 1623 has been shown in the name of Dasain Gape, There is no discussion about this document in the impugned JUDGMENT :. 16., The certified copy of the ORDER :passed in demarcation case no. 25 of 1962 by the demarcation; Deputy-Collector, Gaya has been filed, on behalf of the appellant. It, appears that the respondent had, filed, this case for, demarcation of plot, no. 2550 and 3166 (disputed plot) situated in village Kako P.S. Jehanabad. Tae final ORDER :was passed in the said case from which it would appear that the respondent had admitted that the appellant had made considerable encroachment on the said plots. The learned Deputy Collector, Gaya, incharge demarcation cases, therefore, directed the respondent to file a civil suit. This, said ORDER :has been marked as Ext-C. It has rightly been argued by Mr. Majumdar that this cannot be a proof of title of the appellant over disputed plot no. 3166. But it goes to show that dispute arose over possession of this plot between the parties as far, back as in the year 1963, in which the respondent himself had admitted that the appellant had made considerable encroachment over the said plots. Although it is not a proof of title, of the appellant over the land in question but it is a circumstance which goes in his favour. 17. Although it is not a proof of title, of the appellant over the land in question but it is a circumstance which goes in his favour. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find that the learned Additional District, Judge failed to appreciate, properly, the documents filed on behalf of the appellant, and so its finding with regard to the same cannot be maintained. 18. Lastly, it was argued by Mr. Mazumdar that the appellant based his claim on the dispute land on the basis of the Hukumnama granted by the ex-landlord and that having not been produced, his case was fit to be rejected. It is well settled that for granting valid leas land for agriculture purpose, the grant of Hukumnama is not the only recognised legal mode of settlement. The issuance of rent receipts by the landlord coupled with delivery of possession to the Raiyat has also been held to be good and valid transaction. There was some controversy over this matter because of the divergent views expressed by this, Court in different cases. But the same has been set at rest by a full Bench of this Court in Mostt. Ugni and others v. Chowa Mahto and others (A.I.R. 1968 Patna 302) in which it has been held as follows :- "It is true that a valid agricultural lease may be created by a registered instrument as pointed out in Jangal Singh v. Mukund Kumar, A.I.R. 1948 Pat. 446, and, if such a registered document is created, delivery of possession is not necessary to prove the title of the lessee. If, however, the lease is not registered; and is, therefore, inadmissible as evidence of title, it will always be open to the tenant concerned to show that he obtained Raiyati interest on the strength of actual possession and acceptance of lent by the landlord. There is also no legal bar to a person claiming Raiyati interest on two alternative pleas. He may clam such a right on the basis of a written document of lease. If however, such claim fails on the ground that the document, being compulsorily register-able, was not registered, nevertheless his alternative claim based on actual possession, coupled with acceptance of rent by the landlord, may succeed. In that case the un-registered lease will be admissible for the collateral purpose of proving the nature of possession." 19. If however, such claim fails on the ground that the document, being compulsorily register-able, was not registered, nevertheless his alternative claim based on actual possession, coupled with acceptance of rent by the landlord, may succeed. In that case the un-registered lease will be admissible for the collateral purpose of proving the nature of possession." 19. In the instant case the appellant tried to make out a case of settlement of the disputed land in favour of his father by grant of Hukumnama by the ex-landlords but he did not produce any Hukumnama. But his case cannot be defeated on that ground alone. The rent receipts (B series), the return submitted by the ex-landlord (Ext-A) and the Jamabandi (Ext-D) go to show that the land was settled by the ex-landlord with him and he came in possession of the same. The ORDER :sheet of the demarcation case (Ext-C) further shows that the respondent himself had made complaint before the Deputy Collector, incharge demarcation cases, Gaya that the appellant himself had encroached over a considerable portion of the disputed plot. So in my concluded opinion the documents of title produced on behalf of the appellant are far better and more weighty than the documents produced on behalf of the respondent. It can, therefore, be legitimately inferred that evidence of title and possession produced on behalf of the appellant is superior to that of the respondent. 20. In the result this appeal is allowed and the JUDGMENT : and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Gaya (Land Acquisition Judge) are set aside. I hold that the appellant-opposite party alone is entitled to get compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer with regard to the land in dispute. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no ORDER :as to the costs.