Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 628 (JHR)

Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Padma Devi

2010-05-19

NARENDRA NATH TIWARI

body2010
ORDER : This is defendant's second appeal against the concurrent findings and judgments of learned courts below. 2. The plaintiff had filed suit in the court of Subordinate Judge, Jamshedpur, praying for declaration of his right title and confirmation of possession of the suit plot, described in Schedule-A and B of the plaint and or permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and making construction over the suit and. 3. Briefly stated, the plaintiff's case was, that the land of Survey Plot Nos. 2099 and 2103, appertaining to Khata No. 19 of Mouza Sakchi, was recorded in the name of two brothers, namely, Muchi Gour and Padu Gour, sons of Late Pisto Gour as Dhani (Agricultural) land. The said recorded tenants had been In continuous, possession till their death, Padu Gour died leaving behind his son- the plaintiff. Muchi Gour also died leaving his legal heirs. The plaintiff and the successors of Late Muchi Gour came in peaceful possession of the suit land. The plaintiff, thereafter, constructed a Khaparposh residential house in a portion of the suit land and remaining portion of land is in continuous possession of the plaintiff and the successors of Muchi Gour. The defendant-company was the ex-landlord. The plaintiff's predecessor-in-interest held the land as occupancy raiyat under the defendant. After coming into force of the Bihar. Land Reforms Act, 1950, the said land vested In the State of Bihar and the plaintiff became the tenant under the State of Bihar. The plaintiff's name was recorded in the revenue register as tenant and since thereafter he had been paying rent to the State of Bihar. The defendant company produces iron and steel. It has Influence in the area and on that strength, the Company has been capturing tenant's raiyati land forcibly. The Company has no manner of right, title over the suit land. In November, 1991, the official of the Company came over the suit land and tried to forcibly capture a portion of the suit land. The appellant filed writ petition, being CWJC No. 912 of 1991 in the High Court. Looking to the nature of the claims made in the petition, the same was not entertained and the plaintiff was permitted to withdraw the writ petition to file suit, In the meanwhile, the Company again tried to forcibly occupy the portion of the land, which was resisted by the plaintiff. Looking to the nature of the claims made in the petition, the same was not entertained and the plaintiff was permitted to withdraw the writ petition to file suit, In the meanwhile, the Company again tried to forcibly occupy the portion of the land, which was resisted by the plaintiff. The said dispute led to a proceeding u/s 144 Cr.P.C. in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jamshedpur. He said proceeding was subsequently converted into a proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. The said proceeding was decided against the plaintiff, against which he filed revision and also filed his suit for the reliefs as aforesaid. 4. The suit was contested by the defendant-company. The claim of the company, inter alia, was that the suit Plot No. 2099, measuring an area of 1.92 acres, and Plot No. 2103, measuring an area 2,25 acres, were recorded in the name of Muchi Gour and Padu Gour in R.S. Record of Right in the year 1937. The defendant had got possession over 038 acres of land of R.S. Plot No. 2103 in T.A. Misc. No. 1 of 1936-37 and T.A. Misc. No. 7 of 1943-44. Out of total area of 4,17 acres, 22 acres of land was repossessed by the company by virtue of the said T.A, Miscellaneous cases and the remaining portion of land i.e. 2,95 acres were surrendered by the recorded tenants, namely, Muchi Gour and Padu Gour in favour of the defendant company by virtue of registered deed of surrender dated 1st July, 1942, Since thereafter the land is in continuous possession of the defendant. Formerly, the defendant was the landlord of the suit land, but after coming into force of land reforms legislation, the suit land vested in the State of Bihar. Subsequently by virtue of a deed of lease dated 1st August, 1985, the defendant got the said land from the State of Bihar on lease and has been paying rent in respect of the said land. On the basis of the said document, the proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. was decided in favour of the defendant. 5. Learned Trial Court on the basis of the said pleadings framed as many as six issues as follows: (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present, form? (ii) Whether the plaintiff has valid cause of action? (iii) Whether the suit is filed within time under the provision of Limitation Act? 5. Learned Trial Court on the basis of the said pleadings framed as many as six issues as follows: (i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present, form? (ii) Whether the plaintiff has valid cause of action? (iii) Whether the suit is filed within time under the provision of Limitation Act? (iv) Whether the plaintiff has valid right, title and possession in respect of the suit land? (v) Has the defendant got any right to Interfere or make obstruction in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit land? (vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any relief or reliefs as prayed for? 6. Both the parties adduced evidences-oral and documentary in support of their respective pleadings. 7. Learned Trial Court after scrutinizing the facts and evidences as also the provisions of law decided almost all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and came to the finding that the plaintiff has got valid right title and interest over the suit land and he has been in peaceful possession and restrained the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and making any construction over the suit land. The trial Court also confirmed the plaintiff s possession. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. 8. The defendant then filed title Appeal No. 10 of 1999 in the court of the District Judge Jamshedpur. The said appeal was heard and disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court- I, Jamshedpur. 9. Learned lower appellate Court heard the parties and thoroughly considered the facts, materials and evidences on record and recorded his findings concurring with the finding and of leaned Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 10. Learned Lower Appellate Court found that the findings of the Trial Court are based on due consideration of evidences and materials on record and the same are proper and legal. He further found that the defendant-appellant completely failed to substantiate the grounds challenging the said findings of learned Trial Court. 11. Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, assailed the said concurrent findings of the learned courts below on the ground that the same are not supported by sufficient evidence. He further found that the defendant-appellant completely failed to substantiate the grounds challenging the said findings of learned Trial Court. 11. Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, assailed the said concurrent findings of the learned courts below on the ground that the same are not supported by sufficient evidence. The appraisal of facts and evidences are lopsided and improper, The courts below were swayed by the entries of the names of predecessor In interest of the plaintiff in Survey Record of Rights without properly appreciating that subsequent to the final publication of survey record, the lands were acquired under the provisions of Section. 50 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act in T.A. Misc. No. 1 of 1936-37 and T.A. Misc. No. 7 of 1943 - 44 and also by virtue of the deed of surrender executed by the recorded tenants, The said acquisition by the defendant-company was in accordance with law. After the said acquisition, the plaintiff became the owner and has been in peaceful possession of the, suit land. Leaned courts below failed to take into consideration the said valid documents and Illegally decreed the plaintiffs claim. The Impugned judgments and decrees are, thus, unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 12. I have heard learned Counsel and closely scrutinized the impugned judgments of the learned courts below. On the record, it is an admitted position that the suit land was recorded in the names of the plaintiff's ancestors, namely, Muchi Gour and Padu Gour in the revisional survey record of rights finally published in the year 1937. The initial right of tenancy of the plaintiff's ancestors is, thus, admitted by the defendant. However, the defendant claimed subsequent acquisition of title and possession by virtue of the orders passed in T.A. Misc. No. 1 of 1936-37 and T.A. Misc. No. 7 of 1943-44. The said miscellaneous cases were said to be initiated u/s 50 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act for acquisition of the land of tenant in favour of the company, who was the ex. Landlord. 13. Section 50 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act reads as under: 50. Acquisition of tenure or holding by landlord for certain purposes. No. 7 of 1943-44. The said miscellaneous cases were said to be initiated u/s 50 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act for acquisition of the land of tenant in favour of the company, who was the ex. Landlord. 13. Section 50 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act reads as under: 50. Acquisition of tenure or holding by landlord for certain purposes. – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained In Sections 46 and 47 the Deputy Commissioner, may,- (a) on the application of the landlord of a holding and on being satisfied that he is desirous of acquiring the holding or any part thereof for some reasonable and sufficient purpose having relation to the good of the holding or of the tenure or estate In which It comprised, such as the use of the land for any charitable, religious or educational purpose, or for the purpose of manufacture of irrigation, or as building ground for any such purpose or for access to land used or required for any such purpose and after such inquiry as the Deputy Commissioner may think necessary, authorize the acquisition thereof: by the landlord upon such conditions as the Deputy Commissioner may think fit, and require the tenant to sell his Interest in the holding or part to the landlord upon such terms as may be approved by the Deputy Commissioner, including compensation to the tenant. (b) on the application of the landlord of a tenure or holding and on being satisfied that he Is desirous of acquiring any land within the said tenure or holding for the purpose of mining or for any other purpose which the State Government may by notification declare to be subsidiary thereto or for access to land used or required for such purpose, and after such inquiry as the Deputy Commissioner may think necessary, authorize the acquisition by landlord of such land or part thereof upon such conditions as the Deputy Commissioner may think fit, and require all, persons holding Interests directly or Indirectly subordinate to him in the land to sell their Interest to the said landlord upon payment to every such holder or such compensation as the Deputy Commissioner may determine. 14. On plain reading of the said provision, it is evident that holding of a raiyat can he acquired by landlord for certain purpose with the consent of the Deputy Commissioner. 14. On plain reading of the said provision, it is evident that holding of a raiyat can he acquired by landlord for certain purpose with the consent of the Deputy Commissioner. The purpose has been defined a Section 50(1) of the said Act, which includes reasonable and sufficient purpose having relation to the good of the holding o of the tenure or estate in which it is comprised, such as the use of the land for any charitable religious or educational purpose, or for the purpose of mining, manufacture or irrigation, or as building ground for any such purpose or for access to and used or required for any such purpose. 15. The power has been given to the Deputy Commissioner to authorize such acquisition by the landlord on payment of such compensation as may be filed by the Deputy Commissioner, for which also guideline has been given in Sub-section (1). The defendant has claimed acquisition of a portion of land under the said provision. The defendant has claimed acquisition of remaining portion of suit land by virtue of the deed of surrender. A detail procedure has been laid down for surrender of raiyati land u/s 72 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. Such surrender also requires sanction of the Deputy Commissioner. 16. Learned Trial Court it Paragraphs-14 to 32 has extensively dealt with the said claims of the defendant and found that the defendant failed to prove acquisition of title and Interest over the land either under the provision of Section 50 or Section 72 of the said Act, The defendant failed to produce any document to. prove observance of the legal formalities of Section 50 or Section 72 of the said Act n support of the claim of acquisitions under the provisions of he said sections of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, Learned Trial Court has thoroughly discussed all the evidences and material of the parties and the relevant provisions of law and found the plaintiff's claim well proved legal and genuine and decreed the suit. 17. Learned Lower Appellate Court has also considered all the said issues in Paras- 7 to-16 o his judgment and on due consideration of the facts evidences and provisions of law held that the defendant could not substantiate the grounds for assailing the findings of he learned Trial Court. 17. Learned Lower Appellate Court has also considered all the said issues in Paras- 7 to-16 o his judgment and on due consideration of the facts evidences and provisions of law held that the defendant could not substantiate the grounds for assailing the findings of he learned Trial Court. Learned Lower Appellate Court, accordingly, upheld the findings of the learned Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. 18. Learned Trial Court as well as learned Lower Appellate Court, on due scrutiny and consideration of the evidences and materials on record, have concurrently held that the plaintiff has valid right, title and possession over the suit and. The contentions of the learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant that the findings based on the sufficient evidences and without consideration of the evidences and material produced by the defendant are unfounded and baseless. 19. No ground, as such, has been made out, giving rise to any substantial question of law to be decided in second appeal. 20. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.