Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 538 (PAT)

Nagina Devi v. State Of Bihar

2002-04-24

S.N.PATHAK

body2002
Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.1.88 passed by 1st Additional District Judge. Aurangabad, in title appeal no. 1/83/38/81 affirming the judgment dated 27.2.81. passed by Subordinate Judge, Aurangabad, in title suit no. 13/79. The plaintiffs of that suit are the appellants here. 2. The plaintiffs had filed the aforesaid suit seeking declaration of their occupancy raiyati right over the suit lands as mentioned in the plaint. They had also sought cancellation of orders passed by the D.C.L.R. and the Additional Collector in Cancellation case no. 86/76-77 and mutation appeal no. 235/77. The plaintiffs were claiming their suit lands on the basis of settlement by a sada hukumnama by the ex-landlord and they had asserted that they were paying rent to the ex-landlord and after vesting of the intermediary estate, they were recognised as tenants by the State and they were paying rent and obtaining rent receipts. 3. The trial court on the basis of oral and documentary evidence held that the alleged settlement on the basis of sada hukumnama was not sustainable and the receipts purportedly issued by the ex-landlord and the State Government were all forged and fabricated. So, the suit of the plaintiff-appellants was dismissed. The appellate court also concurred with the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. 4. I find that the plaintiffs had examined so many witnesses in support of their possession as also the fact of settlement in favour of their ancestor. The court, however, disbelieved the evidence of settlement on the ground that P.Ws. among whom there was one ex-landlord, stated that there were other co-sharer-landlords holding the disputed lands and P.W. 3 had one anna share. There was partition among co sharer-landlord and there was a paper in this connection. But no paper was filed in order to support this fact of partition. So, the settlement in favour of the plaintiffs ancestor was disbelieved. Moreover, P.W. 3 had admitted that he and his co sharer- landlords were in possession of the suit lands till the year 1935. In such a circumstances, both the courts below held that if the land-lord himself was in possession of the suit lands till the year 1935, there was no question of settlement by the ex-landlord in favour of the plaintiff-appellants ancestor. In such a circumstances, both the courts below held that if the land-lord himself was in possession of the suit lands till the year 1935, there was no question of settlement by the ex-landlord in favour of the plaintiff-appellants ancestor. The suit lands were admittedly gair majrua malik lands and the plaintiffs case was that it came to the cultivating possession of the ex-landlord who settled it to the plaintiffs ancestor. So, the trial court and the appellate court held that since the ex-landlord himself was not in possession, the question of settlement in favour of the plaintiffs ancestor was not believable. The trial court also disbelieved the fact of settlement on the ground that there were contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws. regarding the amount of nazrana paid to the ex-landlord. There was also discrepancy in the evidence of P.Ws. regarding the month of settlement whether Asharh or Ashwin. The courts below also considered the evidence of P.W. 8, the plaintiff himself, who said that on the date of settlement, the ex-landlords were in possession, but this statement of the plaintiff was contradicted by the evidence of P.W. 3 who said that the landlords were in possession till the year 1935 only. The courts below also took into consideration the circumstances that the suit lands were surrounded by jungles and there was no case of the plaintiff-appellants that there was any reclamation by the ex-landlords or by the settlees themselves. The fact of the entry of the plaintiffs ancestor in the demand register after abolition of intermediary estates was also not supported by any order in this connection. The Karamchari who was examined said that the appellants received receipts for the suit lands on the order of the Circle Officer, but the order of Circle Officer in this connection was not produced. Some D.Ws. were examined by the defendant-respondent (State of Bihar) who supported the fact that the suit lands were parti lands and admittedly they were gair majrua malik lands which vested in the State of Bihar. Thus, both the courts below came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-appellants had failed to prove that the suit lands were in cultivating possession of the ex-landlords when they were settled to the plaintiffs and, thus, the lands were saved from vesting in the State of Bihar. Thus, both the courts below came to the conclusion that the plaintiff-appellants had failed to prove that the suit lands were in cultivating possession of the ex-landlords when they were settled to the plaintiffs and, thus, the lands were saved from vesting in the State of Bihar. These findings of the courts below were findings of fact based on the evidence on the record. I do not think that these findings can be interfered with by this Court. 5. The question of law formulated for this appeal was to the effect (by order dated 27.5.88) whether the courts below erred in holding that the settlement made in favour of the plaintiff had been annuled without taking recourse to the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. Now the question is whether the suit lands were settled with the plaintiff by the State of Bihar after abolition of zamindari as enjoined by the Land Reforms Act. In this connection, no return was produced in the courts below in order to show that the lands were settled to the alleged settlee who was in cultivating possession of the gair majrua malik lands at the time of vesting. No order of Revenue Authority was filed in order to show that the State Government had recognised the alleged settlee (plaintiff-appellants) as tenant being in possession of the gair majrua malik lands. So, simply because the Karamchari issued rent receipts in favour of the plaintiff-appellants that will not indicate that the plaintiff-appellants were recognised as tenants by the State Government under the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. The defendant-respondent had taken a plea that the plaintiffs had got their names entered in the demand register fraudulently with the help of the Halka Karamchari. Since no order passed in any proceeding under the Land Reforms Act was produced in the courts below by the plaintiff-appellants, the allegation of the defendant-respondents shall very much stick. In such a circumstance, the defendant-respondent was free to seek annulment of the fraudulent entry in favour of the plaintiff-appellants. So, the orders passed by L.R.D.C. and the Additional Collector are all legal and valid. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that this appeal is not sustainable. It is, accordingly, dismissed.