Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 618 (JHR)

Peos Kerketta v. State of Jharkhand

2010-05-19

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2010
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2003 (decree signed on 14.11.2003)passed by Sri Sheo Bechan Yadav, Sub JudgeII, Gumla in Title Suit No. 04 of 1996, by which judgment learned Sub Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, hence this appeal. 3. The appellant plaintiff, Peos Kerketta filed the title suit for declaration that the suit land was settled with plaintiff vide Settlement Case No. 3 of 196768 by the defendants is a valid and legal settlement and the order passed by D.C. Gumla in Misc. Appeal no. 15 of 199495 dated 19.02.1995 is erroneous illegal and is liable to be cancelled. 4. The plaintiff also prayed that the defendant land acquisition officer be directed to prepare draft in the name of plaintiff for acquisition of the land of the plaintiff. He also prayed that a decree for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs be awarded in his favour. 5. The plaintiff's case was that lands under R.S. Plot no.145 area 1.50 acre, plot no.161 area 1.40 acre, plotno.2430 area 0.80, plot no. 561 area 1.12 acre, plot no. 561 area 0.18 acre total area 5.00 acre of village Tapkara P.S. Palkot, District Gumla were settled by the State of Bihar through D.C. to the plaintiff in settlement case no. 3 of 196768 and 'parvana' was issued in his name and after settlement plaintiff came in possession over the suit land and paid rent and cess. He also stated that the plaintiff invested about Rs.10,000/ for converting 'tanr' lands into 'Done' lands, and subsequently, the said lands were acquired in land acquisition case and notices were issued for filing objection. He stated that the lands were settled to him and since the land acquisition officer failed to make any award over land acquisition suit land, he is entitled to get declaration and award. It is further stated that the plaintiff subsequently filed application before S.D.O., Gumla. It is stated that subsequently the plaintiff filed the petition before D.C., Gumla vide appeal no. 15 of 199495, but the D.C., Gumla without considering the law and facts of the case dismissed the case on 19.02.1995. The plaintiff also submitted that they had came to Hon'ble High Court in civil writ being C.W.J.C. no. It is stated that subsequently the plaintiff filed the petition before D.C., Gumla vide appeal no. 15 of 199495, but the D.C., Gumla without considering the law and facts of the case dismissed the case on 19.02.1995. The plaintiff also submitted that they had came to Hon'ble High Court in civil writ being C.W.J.C. no. 822 of 1995, where Hon'ble High Court directed the plaintiff to file title suit before the civil court. It is submitted that the plaintiff filed the title suit, which was wrongly dismissed by the trial court, and hence this appeal. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned trial court failed to consider the settlement paper (Ext.1) and rent receipts (Ext.2 to 2/e). The plaintiff had preferred their claim over the suit land. The plaintiff also proved the fact through Ext.3 i.e. the notice issued to him and he was entitled to get the declaration that the settlement was legal and valid. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the plaintiff, who claimed the settlement of the suit land, failed to place any judgment or order of the circle officer passed in settlement no. 3 of 196768. Moreover, the defence have filed and proved the original Khatian of Khewat no.2 Khata no.197, which shows that all the aforesaid plot numbers, namely 161, 145, 561, 594, 628, 189/2430 are rivers and jungles and no settlement can be made by the State of Bihar and now by the State of Jharkhand, even, the circle officer has no right to settle the same. Even the witnesses admitted that the lands are river lands and jungle lands and in the absence of any settlement order, the learned Sub Judge rightly dismissed the suit. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and after going through the record, I find that in order to prove the case, the plaintiff has examined as many as 14 witnesses. 9. P.W.1, Gonde Khadiya has proved the settlement parvana as Ext.1. P.W.2, Rajendra Jha has proved the rentreceipts as Ext.2 to 2/e. P.W.3, Prabhu Dayal Sahu has proved the notice issued by land acquisition officer as Ext.3. P.W.4, Md. 9. P.W.1, Gonde Khadiya has proved the settlement parvana as Ext.1. P.W.2, Rajendra Jha has proved the rentreceipts as Ext.2 to 2/e. P.W.3, Prabhu Dayal Sahu has proved the notice issued by land acquisition officer as Ext.3. P.W.4, Md. Jamil Khan has proved the rent receipt as Ext.2/H. P.W.5, Sukra Barua has proved the rent receipt as Ext.2/I. P.W.6, Rancha Khadia has proved the fact that the disputed land is a dam and the entire land is submersed in water. He has stated that the land is 'Gair Mazurwa' land, but he has not seen the settlement paper of Peos Kerketta. P.W.7, Dhanku Mahto has stated that the disputed land was previously a big jungle and claimed that Peos Kerketta had made it samtal (plain) and denied that the land was 'Gair Mazurwa' land of the government. P.W.8, Junas Munda has stated that the land are submerged in water and it is submerged since the last two years and it is a government dam. P.W.9, Budhnath Bilung has proved the sale deed, which was marked as Ext.4. P.W.10, Jaleshwar Singh has proved the certified signature as Ext.2/L and 2/M. P.W.11 has also proved the notice as Ext.5. P.W.12, Pahna Barla has proved the postal receipt as Ext.6. P.W.13, Heera Lal Singh has proved the postal receipts as Ext.7 to 7/E. P.W.14 Peos Karketta is the plaintiff himself and he stated that plot nos. 145, 2430, 161, 561 of Khata no.197 Area 5 acre was settled to him, since, he was exmilitary man. The lands are at village Tapkara under Palkot police station. He has filed the papers of settlement and he made the land into 'Done' by spending Rs.10,000/. He stated that the defendants have now made dam over the same and he had filed objection before the land acquisition officer, but no award was made, and subsequently, the case was dismissed by Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, hence, he gave notice and filed this case. 10. It is important to note that the defendants also examined two witnesses namely Birendra Kumar and Sunil Jayant Panna. D.W.1, who is the Circle Inspector, Palkot Anchal stated that the land having Khata no. 197 belongs to the State of Jharkhand, which was previously the land of landlord and after eradication of Jamindari, the same was surrendered to the State of Bihar and now it is a property of the State of Jharkhand. D.W.1, who is the Circle Inspector, Palkot Anchal stated that the land having Khata no. 197 belongs to the State of Jharkhand, which was previously the land of landlord and after eradication of Jamindari, the same was surrendered to the State of Bihar and now it is a property of the State of Jharkhand. In Registry II, the lands have been shown in the name of State. He has proved the registry II as Ext. A. He has stated that after missing his case before the D.C., Gumla, the plaintiff filed the case before the Hon'ble High Court. Earlier after verifying that no settlement has been made and the settlement, if any, made in the name of plaintiff was cancelled, which he proved as Ext.A/1, since the settlement was granted only on paper. He has also stated that the land of 'Khatian' are recorded as river and jungle and the plaintiff was never in the possession of the same. D.W.2, Sunil Jayant Panna also stated that the disputed land were earlier accorded in the land of landlord and after Vesting of Jamindari, it became the land of State of Bihar and presently it is the land of State of Jharkhand. The lands are recorded in the 'Khatian' as river and jungle land. 11. After considering the evidences on record, it appears that no doubt the plaintiff has filed the settlement paper, Ext.1, but there is no order of settlement made by the Circle Officer or by any officer of the State of Bihar. He has also proved Ext.2 series to show that after settlement, he has filed case to the State of Bihar, but as it appears from Ext. A/1, since, after enquiry it was found by the Additional Collector that there was no settlement and the same was cancelled being illegal. The plaintiff has filed a notice issued in his name by the land acquisition officer, which has been marked as Ext.3, but he has failed to prove that in persuance of the said notice, he has filed any objection petition before the land acquisition officer or that his objections were heard and rejected or that any reference was made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is only when the awards were passed that the plaintiff started making claims over the lands right from the S.D.O. till the D.C. and when it was rejected, then he filed a writ application in the Hon'ble High Court, Ranchi Branch. It appears from the order dated 22.08.1995 passed in C.W.J.C. No.822 of 1995 (R) that the plaintiff, who was the petitioner in the writ application namely Peos Kerketta submitted before the Hon'ble High Court that the lands were settled to him by the exlandlord and the Additional Collector vide his report (Annexure5) wrongly found that it was not established. The order is quoted as below: "22.8.95. Heard Shri P.N. Sahu, the counsel for the petitioners and the learned G.P. for the State. In this application, the claim of the petitioner is that his land was acquired in 1981 under the Land Acquisition Act but no award has been prepared. Shri Sahu submits that an inquiry was held by the Additional Collector vide report, Annexure5, who found that the claim of the petitioner that the land was settled by exlandlord has not been established. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the land in question is Gairmazurwa lands of the State of Bihar pertaining to Khata no.197 of village Tapkara, which was surrendered by the exlandlord in the Jamindari return. It also appears that during inquiry no objection of claim was made by the petitioner. In view of what has been stated above, proper remedy for the petitioner is to file title suit. No relief can be granted by this Court. This application is disposed of." 12. Thus, from the aforesaid order, it is apparent that the plaintiff, in his writ application, claimed the said land to have been settled by the exlandlord, but when he was directed to file suit, then in the title suit, he claimed that the land was settled by the State of Bihar and relied on a 'parvana' issued in the Settlement Case No. 3/6768, but in the absence of order of settlement that cannot be accepted. Moreover, as contended by learned counsel for the State, a jungle or river land cannot be settled to anybody and the Khatian, Ext. Moreover, as contended by learned counsel for the State, a jungle or river land cannot be settled to anybody and the Khatian, Ext. B proved in title suit shows that the entire plots of Khata no.197 are river and jungle, even the plaintiff witnesses namely P.W.8 admitted that the entire land claimed by the plaintiff is submersed in water since last twenty years, and as such, it is admittedly a river land since long, which was never in possession of the plaintiff and the plaintiff has failed to prove his right title and possession over the suit land. 13. I find no merit in this appeal. I find nothing to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.