Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 507 (JHR)

Jagarnath Singh v. Bimelendu Pathak

2010-04-20

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2010
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar, J. This first appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 21.7.1999 in L.A Case No. 69 of 1986 passed by Shri AA Gouri, learned Sub-Judge, 1st, Bokaro at Chas, by which judgment he allowed the case of the applicant-respondent here with contest and without any cost and the applicant, Bimelendu Pathak was declared entitled to receive the compensation benefit. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Jagarnath Singh that he was one of the opposite parties in Land Acquisition Case and his documents and witnesses were not considered properly and the learned court below should not have decided the case in favour of the applicant when there was a dispute with regard to the property in question. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the appellant failed to prove by any oral or documentary evidence-that he ever came in possession over the property and his claim was based on no document and on the basis of some photocopy of rent receipts of which even the original was not available with the appellant, has got no claim over the suit property and the applicant-respondents here, who are the sons of the recorded tenant and khatian of the land was proved. In that view of the matter, the learned Sub-Judge, 1st, Bokaro at Chas has rightly allowed the application. 4. After hearing both the parties and going through the record, I find that Plot No. 939 under Khata No. 4 of Mouza Sindur Patti, Mouza No. 77 within Chas P.S. having an area of 3.25 acres belonged to the applicant-respondent here, Bimelendu Pathak and the applicant is in peaceful possession over it. The South Eastern Railway acquired 11 decimals of land out of the said area for its own purpose which is adjacent to Talgoria Railway Station about which the Land Acquisition Department has informed the applicant. Subsequently, an objection petition was filed by one Chattu Singh son of late Shyam Singh of Sindur Patti, who claimed the said land. The South Eastern Railway acquired 11 decimals of land out of the said area for its own purpose which is adjacent to Talgoria Railway Station about which the Land Acquisition Department has informed the applicant. Subsequently, an objection petition was filed by one Chattu Singh son of late Shyam Singh of Sindur Patti, who claimed the said land. The claim of Chattu Singh was opposed by the applicant, who stated that his claim is mala fide, as the land belonged to his father, Shyam Singh, who is recorded tenant of Abad Khata No.4, Mouza-Sindur Patti and his name has been recorded in the last survey settlement and he was paying the rent firstly to the ex-landlord and then after vesting of Jamindari to the State of Bihar. 5. The matter was referred to Land Acquisition Judge, Bokaro at Chas under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. Thereafter, the notices were issued to the parties and they appeared in the case. 6. It appears that subsequently the objector Chattu Singh died and the applicant filed an application under Order XXII Rule 4 C.P.C. for impleading his sons as parties in the case, namely, Jagannath Singh, Adalat Singh and Krishna Singh. The said petition for substitution, was allowed by its order dated 18.7.1998 and subsequently the appellant, Jagannath Singh appeared and filed his show cause on 20.2.99. It is important to note that his other brothers, namely, Adalat Singh and Krishna Singh did not appear in the case. The objector-appellant made out a case that the land in question originally belonged to Bishnu Prasad Pathak father of the applicant-respondent here, but subsequently, Bishnu Pathak and Oamodar Pathak sons of Ramnarain Pathak executed a registered sale deed in favour of one Sudhir Mohan Ganguley including the land in question in the year 1945 and thereafter in the same year Ariel Paper Mill Co. Ltd. purchased the land in question with other lands from the said lessee and came in possession for carrying on business and subsequently in the year. 1952 i.e. on 21.9.52 the company settled the land in question with other lands to Chattu Lal Singh, the father of the opposite parties through a deed of Patta and since then the father and thereafter his sons (o.ps.) are in possession of the said land. 7. 1952 i.e. on 21.9.52 the company settled the land in question with other lands to Chattu Lal Singh, the father of the opposite parties through a deed of Patta and since then the father and thereafter his sons (o.ps.) are in possession of the said land. 7. It appears that during trial the applicant also examined three witnesses, namely, A.W. 1, Bimlendu Pathak, A.W. 2, Nagendranath Singh, A.W. 3, Kriti Prasad Singh. 8. The applicant also filed the original khatiyan of Khata No.4, Mouza Sindurpatti, which is marked as Ext.-4. 9. The applicant witness no. 1, Bimlendu Pathak stated in Court that the land in question stood recorded in the name of his father, Bishun Pathak and after the death of his father he himself came in peaceful possession over the land including 11 decimals of land acquired by the railway for which the Award has been prepared in his name. He further stated that sons of Chattu Singh had no claim over the land. He (sic) 10. The applicant witness no. 2, Nagendranath Singh also stated that the land in question is adjacent to his village and the land is recorded in the name of Bishnu Pathak and the same is under cultivating possession of the applicant. He further stated that he has also purchased 1 acre land from the applicant over which he has built his own house. He further stated that the opposite party here has got no right over the same. 11. The applicant witness no. 3, Kriti. Prasad Singh also stated that the land in question is in possession of the applicant. He further stated that he had also purchased one acre of land from the applicant. 12. It further appears that during trial the opposite parties examined opposite party witnesses, namely, O.P.W. 1, Jagannath Singh. O.P.W. 2, Hanimlal Singh and O.P.W. 3, Laljee Singh. 13. O.P.W. 1, Jagannath Singh stated that he purchased 28 decimals of land from Ariel Paper Mill in 1952, but the deed was not registered and the Ariel Paper Mill had purchased the land from one Sudhir Mohan Ganguley, but no deed was filed. He does not file any rent receipt in respect of the disputed land. He has got no copy of registered deed. The deed was registered in Purulia. He accepted that the railway issued no notice in his favour for compensation with regard to the land. 14. He does not file any rent receipt in respect of the disputed land. He has got no copy of registered deed. The deed was registered in Purulia. He accepted that the railway issued no notice in his favour for compensation with regard to the land. 14. O.P.W. 2, Hanimlal Singh stated that the father of O.P. Jagannath Singh has got the land from Ariel Paper Mill by registered deed some 40-50 years back and since then the opposite parties are in possession over the land. 15. O.P.W. 3, Laljee Singh also stated that opposite party-Jagannath with the possession of the land after the purchase of the said land by his father from Ariel Paper Mill by a registered deed. 16. However, it is important to note that no registered deed or rent receipt granted by the State of Bihar was filed by the opposite parties and they only filed photocopy of unregistered deed, which was not relied by the trial (sic-court ?). The objector filed some rent receipts granted by Zamindar, but no Register-II was brought in evidence to show that Zamindar sold them as tenant in Register-II. No sale deed of Sudhir Mohan Ganguley or Ariel Paper Mill was filed to show any earlier transfer. 17. Thus, after considering the evidences, I find that although both the parties have claimed possession over the land, but admittedly the claim of the applicant is supported by the Khata-Ext.-4 while the claim of the opposite parties are not supported by any document. Photocopy of unregistered deed cannot be accepted as a document of any title and it seems that such photocopy can be created for the purpose of creating some right in absence of Register-II or any other reliable document. The claim (sic) 18. I find no merit in this appeal filed by the appellant, the same is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and finding of the Land Acquisition Judge dated 21.7.1999 passed in L.A. Case No. 69 of 1986 is confirmed and it requires no interference by this Court.