Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 940 (JHR)

Urmila Devi v. Kamdeo Pandit

2010-09-27

N.N.TIWARI

body2010
JUDGMENT Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. The original Plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration of his right, title over the suit and for confirmation of possession over the land as also alternatively for recovery of possession. 2. The Plaintiff's case is that land of plot No. 782 under Jamabandi No. 15, Mouza-Deo Patan, P.S. Sarwan, District-Deoghar was the ancestral land and the same had been possessed by him peacefully. The said land was never donated to Bhoodan Yogya Committee. No notice was ever issued to the Plaintiff regarding any confirmation proceeding before the revenue court. The Defendant also got the name mutated behind the back of the Plaintiff suppressing the fact and the notice to the Plaintiff. The orders passed by the revenue authorities are illegal and without jurisdiction. 3. The case of the Defendant is that the area of Plot No. 782 was 0.30 acres. The said land was donated to Bhoodan Yogya Committee and the said committee by Bhoodan Praman Patra No. 106761 dated 2.9.1963 had settled an area of 7 decimals of land of plot No. 782 to the Defendant. The said settlement by Bhoodan Yogya Committee was confirmed by the competent authority under the provisions of Section 13 of Bhoodan Yogya Act. It has been stated that the Plaintiff had Knowledge of the said proceeding as also the proceeding in the revenue court. The Defendant filed a petition for fixation of rent before Land Revenue Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, which was allowed after consideration of the facts and law. The orders of the revenue authorities, appellate and revisional authorities are well reasoned and in accordance with law. The Plaintiff had no cause of action against the Defendant and the suit was not maintainable. 4. Learned trial court as well as learned lower appellate court on thorough appraisal of the facts, evidences and materials on record concurrently held that the land was settled by Bhoodan Yogya Committee in favour of Defendant by a valid document (Exhibit-C/1) by order dated 11.11.1963. Learned Land Reforms Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, who is the competent authority confirmed the said settlement in favour of Defendant (Exhibit-F) in Bhoodan Case No. 641 of 1963 and there was no objection on behalf of the Plaintiff or from any corner against Danpatra. Learned Land Reforms Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, who is the competent authority confirmed the said settlement in favour of Defendant (Exhibit-F) in Bhoodan Case No. 641 of 1963 and there was no objection on behalf of the Plaintiff or from any corner against Danpatra. Learned L.R.D.C. in its order held that the suit land was donated to Bhoodan Yogya Committee and the same was settled in favour of Defendant-Respondent. The appeal and the revision preferred by the Plaintiff were decided against him. Learned courts below found that even in the proceeding of confirmation of Danpatra, there was valid service of notice on the Plaintiff. He was a party to the said proceeding. 5. Learned trial court passed the decree after discussing and appraising all the relevant evidences and materials on record. Learned lower appellate court has also independently scrutinized the evidences and come to a definite finding and concurred with the finding of facts arrived at by learned trial court. 6. It is well settled that concurrent finding of facts is binding on the second appellate court. 7. Mr. Rajendra Prasad, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Appellants led much emphasis on the alleged violation of Rules of Bhoodan Yogya, and contended that there was no legal and valid proceeding for confirmation of the Danpatra, as required under the said Act and no notice was served on the Plaintiffs-Appellants. 8. However, in view of the materials and evidences on record, learned courts below has already dismissed such plea of the Plaintiffs-Appellants. Learned lower appellate court has concurred with the finding of learned trial court by recording sound conclusion based on material and evidences on record. 9. I find no error in the impugned judgment of learned tower appellate court giving rise to any substantial question of law to be framed and decided In this appeal. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.