JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Plaintiff is appellant. She filed Title Suit No. 35 of 1972 against defendants for declaration that suit land, fully described in Schedule A to the plaint, was her raiyati land, wherein she got right, title and interest and for recovery of possession. The suit was decreed. Title Appeal No. 18 of 1982 filed by her against trial courts decree was also dismissed. Hence, this second appeal by her, 2. At the time of admission of this ap peal following substantial question of law was framed. "In view of the fact that Bengal Coal Company Limited, who had 2/3 interest in the village had taken the interest of other persons of the Khewat in Mokrri whether the settlement made by the Bengal Coal Company Limited, under the circumstances, can be said to be bad in law; consequently, whether it should be held that the settlement made by that Company in favour of the appellant was valid in eye of taw." 3. According to plaintiff Bengal Coal Company held 2 annas 3 pies mukiyat inter-eat, whereas Mahto proprietors together held the rest 13 annas 9 pies in village Panwa, District Palamau. Mahto proprietors had created Mokarri interest to the extent of their share in favour of the said Company, by registered deed dated 24.11.1900 (Ext. C), whereby the said Company got right to reclaim the lands towards South and West of the village for rehabilitation of the miners or workers including labourers, coolies and officers connected with mining operation. The company also extracted coals. 4. Plaintiffs further case was that suit land was recorded as Gairmazarua Malik. Her vendor obtained the suit land (plot No. 6, area 2 acres) in raiyati settlement from the said Company on 11.1.1950, through parwana (Ext. 3) and plaintiff purchased it by two registered sale deeds dated 4.5.1970. There was a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure over the suit land, which was finally decided on 31.1.1972 against the plaintiff. 5. Defendants were descendants of Mahto proprietors aforesaid. They admitted to have sold 2 annas 3 pies milkiyat interest to the said Company and to have executed Mokarri deed for 13 annas 9 pies share to the said Company. Those proprietors continued in possession of the suit land and reclaimed and cultivated it. 5. Defendants were descendants of Mahto proprietors aforesaid. They admitted to have sold 2 annas 3 pies milkiyat interest to the said Company and to have executed Mokarri deed for 13 annas 9 pies share to the said Company. Those proprietors continued in possession of the suit land and reclaimed and cultivated it. At the time of vesting of Zamindari in the State they filed Jamabandi return mentioning the suit land in their khas possession. After vesting they have been recognised as tenant over the suit land under Section 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and they were paying rent against receipts. 6. Plaintiffs vendors were neither miners nor workers and so the said company had no authority under the Mokarri deed (Ext. C) to make raiyati settlement of the suit land with strangers, like the plaintiffs vendors. Further in parwana Ext. 3 there was neither plot number, nor area, nor boundary of the land and only a sum of Rs. 60/- was mentioned to have been paid in Salami 7. Plaintiff admitted that the said Company had made settlement out of Mokarri interest and not out of milkiyat interest. She further claimed that out of 3 acres, suit land of 2 acres was settled through Ext. 3 and one acre, continuous north thereof, was reclaimed by her vendors and amalgamated in one block on spot. 8. Both the Courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact that plaintiff or her vendors were never in possession of the suit land and defendants were in khas cultivating possession thereof. 9. I, find no reason to interfere with impugned judgments and decrees, there is no merit in the Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed, but without costs. 10. Appeal dismissed.