JUDGMENT : Amitav K. Gupta, J. This first appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2001 and 18.04.2001 respectively passed in Title Suit no.56/1996 by Sub-Judge-III, Ranchi whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed with the finding that the suit property situated over plot nos.1676 and 1675 within Ward no.7 of Ranchi Municipality is not a government land within the meaning of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 or under the provision of any other Act and declaring the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the suit property. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the aforementioned suit property was recorded in the name of Shyam Kishan Sahay having an area of 20485 karies with house structures at Circular Road, Ranchi and his name was recorded in the municipal record of right published in 1929. That the said Shyam Kishan Sahay by registered deed of sale dated 18.07.1941 sold and transferred 4 bighas 10 kathas (i.e. 90 kathas) of the land along with the building and other structure to Panna Lal Modi who subsequently sold and transferred the said land to M/s. Modi and Sons(P) Ltd. by registered sale deed dated 16.09.1950. That the name of Modi and Sons(P) Ltd. was recorded in Register II maintained by the then State of Bihar and accordingly rent was realised by the State from the Company. That M/s. Modi and Sons(P), Ltd., sold the suit property to the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 18.01.1961 and the plaintiff came in possession of the same as the owner of the suit property. The plaintiff invested substantial money by installing machineries for establishment of the foundry. It is stated that by a registered deed of exchange dated 24.03.1976 D.K. Sahay, S/o late S.K. Sahay, in lieu of M.S. Plot no.1480 in Ward no. VII of Ranchi Municipality exchanged 6 kathas, 10 chataks of M.S. Plot no.1675 and the plaintiff came in possession over the said land. It is stated that by a registered deed of exchange dated 24.03.1976 D.K. Sahay, S/o late S.K. Sahay, in lieu of M.S. Plot no.1480 in Ward no. VII of Ranchi Municipality exchanged 6 kathas, 10 chataks of M.S. Plot no.1675 and the plaintiff came in possession over the said land. That the plaintiff could not get its name mutated in the Government Revenue Record but it kept paying the rent to the State of Bihar in the name of erstwhile owner, namely, M/s. Modi and Sons(P), Ltd. It is pleaded that the land was never acquired by the government in any form either for public purpose or by forfeiture neither it came in possession of the Government by acquisition or by resumption from the zamindar for performance of police duty. That the government never claimed the land as being Khas Mahal property and the owners of the land were not called upon to execute any kind of document in favour of the government. That the original owner of the property and all subsequent transferees remained in possession of the property as absolute owner thereof, in open assertion of their hostile title to the full knowledge of all concerned and perfected their title by adverse possession. That the plaintiff has also got its name mutated in the office of Ranchi Municipal Corporation and has been paying property tax for the same. On the above grounds it is stated that there is no record to show that the land was ever recorded as Khas Mahal property or lease hold property. That since it was not a Khas Mahal property the owners were not required to obtain any permission when the land was transferred from the original owner to the purchaser and subsequently to the plaintiff. That the government had tried to take forcible possession of the land together with the building, office room and plant and when it was resisted and protested by the public the defendant was compelled to desist from such act. That for restraining the defendants, the plaintiff filed writ application in the High Court being CWJC No.2372 of 1992(R) and the High Court vide order dated 11.11.1992 directed the parties to seek the remedy before the appropriate court whereafter notice under Section 80 C.P.C was issued upon the Collector but no reply was received consequently the suit was instituted against the defendants. 3. 3. The respondent-State filed their written statement challenging the maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation stating that it is barred under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and non-payment of the requisite court fees as well as non-service of notice mandated under Section 80 C.P.C. They denied that Late S.K. Sahay was the absolute owner and since he was not the absolute owner he had no right to transfer the property to the plaintiff. That the lands are Khas Mahal land surveyed in 1941 and all the transfers have been made against the provision of law and is not binding upon the respondent-State. The aforementioned suit property has not been mutated in the name of the plaintiff. That the plaintiff has not paid rent for the land. M/s. Modi and Sons(P) Ltd. had managed to get its name mutated by suppressing the material facts but, thereafter no rent is being reaslised as the holding has been shown as lease hold lands and the story of exchange of land of Plot no.1480 is misleading and collusive. That during 1940-41 the land has been shown as Khas Mahal plot no.119 and zamabandi 44 of village Konka, P.S. within the district Ranchi. The occupier are the lessees and they are required to execute the deed of lease as per government circular in the prescribed forms. It is stated that the land was within the Barkagarh Estate and the same was later on forfeited by the government and became Khas Mahal land. 4. Both the plaintiff and the defendant adduced documentary and oral evidence. The documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiff are Ext.1, which is a registered sale deed dated 16.09.1950 executed by Panna Lal Modi in favour of M/s. Modi and Sons (P) Ltd.; Ext.2 is the notice under Section 80 C.P.C; Ext.3 is the municipal khatian in the name of S.K. Sahay ; Ext.4 is the information pertaining to the land as supplied by the Municipal Corporation and Ext.5 and 5/A are the municipal receipts granted in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant has examined six witnesses and also relied on some documents which have been marked as Exts A,B and C.. Ext.A is Register-II, Ext.B is lease register and Ext. C is the map with respect to Khas Mahal plot. 5. Defendant has examined six witnesses and also relied on some documents which have been marked as Exts A,B and C.. Ext.A is Register-II, Ext.B is lease register and Ext. C is the map with respect to Khas Mahal plot. 5. On the pleadings of the parties the trial court has framed six issues which are as follows:- (I) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (ii) Has the plaintiff valid cause of action for the suit? (III) Is the suit barred by limitation? (IV) Is the suit barred by Specific Relief Act? (V) Whether the suit property is Khas Mahal Land belonging to the State? (VI) Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit property? (VII) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief as claimed? On the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties the court below has decreed the suit declaring the plaintiff as the owner of the suit land and holding that the suit property is not a lease hold or Khas Mahal land of the defendant/State. 6. Learned counsel for the defendant/appellant has relied on Ext.A, B and C and submitted thatt the suit land is a lease hold and Khas Mahal property of the Government. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff has argued that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and decree of the court below. It is submitted that on similar facts the High Court in CWJC No.2795/1999(R) vide order dated 28.02.2013 has held that the State could not produce any document to establish their claim that the suit land was lease hold and Khas Mahal property. Similarly, in W.P(C) No.2464/2002 prayer of the petitioner was allowed by directing the respondent to register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner in accordance with law. 7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties the point for determination before this Court is whether the suit property is a Khas Mahal or lease hold property as claimed by the appellant-defendant/State and whether the plaintiff is the owner and whether the judgment and decree of the court below suffers from any illegality or infirmity. 8. 7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties the point for determination before this Court is whether the suit property is a Khas Mahal or lease hold property as claimed by the appellant-defendant/State and whether the plaintiff is the owner and whether the judgment and decree of the court below suffers from any illegality or infirmity. 8. On perusal of the documents it transpires that in the Khas Mahal Manual, 1953 Rule 78 provides that a list of Khas Mahal lease should be maintained separately in each sub-district office which should be periodically revised and updated bearing the signature and date and designation of the officer concerned who is supposed to sign on the same. The details as to how Khas Mahal land became a Government estate should also be mentioned and in column 12 the revenue history of the land having become government estate should also be detailed. It is evident that the property was recorded in the municipal record of right in the name of Shykam Kishore Sahay who had transferred the land in 1941 without obtaining any sanction from the Deputy Commissioner and had the property been Khas Mahal land the same could not have been transferred without the sanction in writing of the Deputy Commissioner. It is not disputed that after 1941 the lands were transferred in 1950 and subsequently in 1961 there was an exchange of land between D.K. Sahay and the plaintiff and for none of the transactions the sanction of the Deputy Commissioner was obtained, therefore, the onus is upon the State to prove that the said land was leased out by the Government but no document has been produced in this regard by the defendant i.e. the State Government. The defendant has also not produced the Registers as has been provided in Rule 78 and the only document which has been produced is entry in the Register-II wherein it has been recorded that the suit plot is a Khas Mahal property but it does not bear any signature of any competent officer neither it contains the details as to on what basis entry was made. It would also be pertinent to note that the defendant/State has not produced lease deed for substantiating the contention that it was a Khas Mahal land which was leased out by the State to the owner, namely, S.K. Sahay. It would also be pertinent to note that the defendant/State has not produced lease deed for substantiating the contention that it was a Khas Mahal land which was leased out by the State to the owner, namely, S.K. Sahay. D.W.1 has admitted that Register-II does not contain any information of the lease deed neither does he know as to who had made entry and there is no signature of any officer in the Register-II nor Lease Case has been mentioned. D.W.2 is the Karamchari of the Circle Office and he has admitted that for Khas Mahal land khatian has been prepared but there is no Khas Mahal Officer and Khas Mahal Khatian is prepared in the name of Secretary of India in Council. He has admitted that the government grants lease of the Khas Mahal land by registered document . The record of such lease is maintained which can be ascertained whether the plot land is Khas Mahal or not and he has admitted that he does not know as to how the word lease has been mentioned in Registrar-II. He has admitted that Register was prepared in 1991. D.W.3 is the Anchal Nirishak (Circle Inspector) and he has stated that the lease has expired in 1966 but in the Jamabandhi Register the lease has been shown from 1942. In cross-examination he has admitted that previously land belonged to S.K. Sahay and initial rent of Rs.179/- was reduced by 13 rupees 14 anna 3 paise after S.K. Sahay had sold another portion of the land to one Uma Sundari. That S.K. Sahay had again sold another portion of the land to one Pannalal Modi and the rent was again reduced by 44 rupees 11 annas 3 paise payable by Pannalal Modi for the land purchased by him. It is evident that Rs.179/- was proportionally reduced by the government on the basis of the sale and the transfer made by S.K. Sahay was valid which was accepted by the State. 9. The witnesses of the defendant/appellant have stated that when a property is confiscated then it becomes Khas Mahal property and they have stated that the property initially belonged to Bishwanath Sahadeo who participated in freedom movement due to which his property was confiscated in 1857. 9. The witnesses of the defendant/appellant have stated that when a property is confiscated then it becomes Khas Mahal property and they have stated that the property initially belonged to Bishwanath Sahadeo who participated in freedom movement due to which his property was confiscated in 1857. If the statement of this witness is believed then the suit land should have become Khas Mahal since 1857 but there is no explanation as to how the property became a Khas Mahal property in 1942 and why it was recorded in the name of S.K.Sahay in 1929 Municipal Survey. The witness has also admitted that in the Municipal Register Khas Mahal property is recorded as Khas Mahal property and he does not know as to who had written in the last column the word 'lease' as there is no signature of any officer against the said entry. He has stated that in Case no.315/1977 (Ext.B) the property has been shown as property of Devendranath Dutt and not the property of S.K. Sahay and there is no case number with respect to the property of S.K. Sahay. He has admitted that case number has been mentioned against other names in the register except against the name of S.K. Sahay. D.W.4 is the Halka Karamchari and he has stated that there is procedure to maintain Khas Mahal record and whenever there is lease the same is duly noted by the officer in the Khas Mahal lease. 10. In view of the evidence of the witnesses it would be evident that no lease register was available nor the procedure was followed neither the case number was mentioned nor the period during which the said land became a Khas Mahal land is mentioned moreover there is no signature of the concerned officer in the entries of the Register. This amply demonstrates that the land in question was not a Khas Mahal land. 11. On the other hand, the plaintiff has produced municipal khatian (Ext.3) which was published in 1929 and has been recorded in the name of S.K. Sahay. Ext.1-A is the sale deed executed by S.K. Sahay on 18.07.1941, Ext.1 is the sale deed executed by Panna Lal Modi on 16.09.1950, Ext.1/B is the sale deed dated 18.01.1961 executed by M/s. Modi & Sons(P) Ltd. The above sale deeds ex facie disclose that the land was transferred without obtaining the prior sanction/permission of the Deputy Commissioner. Ext.1-A is the sale deed executed by S.K. Sahay on 18.07.1941, Ext.1 is the sale deed executed by Panna Lal Modi on 16.09.1950, Ext.1/B is the sale deed dated 18.01.1961 executed by M/s. Modi & Sons(P) Ltd. The above sale deeds ex facie disclose that the land was transferred without obtaining the prior sanction/permission of the Deputy Commissioner. It is manifested that no action was taken by the competent authority against the said transfer. Had it been a lease hold property of the Government then the competent authority would have definitely taken legal action against the transferor or transferees. Ext.4 is the certified copy of information of Municipal Corporation detailing the history of land from 1929 which shows that the land was never recorded as Khas Mahal land in the municipal record. The respondent/plaintiff has also brought on record the certified copy of the order passed in U.L.C. Case No.329 wherein the competent authority has held that the respondent/plaintiff does not hold the land in excess of the ceiling area. It is pertinent to note that none of the revenue officers i.e. Additional Collector (Ceiling) and Kanoongo has recorded that the suit land is the Government Khas Mahal land. 12. That a dispute arose with regard to registration of sale deed relating to different portion of the same suit plot which was refused by the State authorities on the plea that the lands were Khas Mahal properties and the High Court in W.P(C) No.2464/2002 directed the respondents/State authorities for registering the sale deeds. That in CWJC No.2795/1999(R) the High Court observed that the respondent/State could not substantiate that the lands in question are Khas Mahal lands. 13. It is evident from the documents produced on behalf of the plaintiff that the suit land was recorded in the name of Late S.K. Sahay in the Municipal records as far back as in the year 1929. Thereafter the same was sold to Panna Lal Modi on 18.07.1941. The defendant/State has never raised any objection at that point of time and the plea of the appellant/State that the land was lease hold and Khas Mahal property is based on Exts.A, B and C. In response to the same it is to be noted that under Rule 2 of Khas Mahal Manual, 1953 the procedure for acquiring of the estate by the government is laid down. The trial court has discussed the evidence and also perused the Exhibits brought on record by the appellant/State. It is evident that there is no recital in the documents produced by the appellant/State that at any point of time the suit land was forfeited by the government or was acquired for public purpose or for any other government activities. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties it is evident that the plaintiff has been able to prove their title. They are the purchaser from the vendor who had purchased the land from the original owner. That the plaintiff has discharged the burden of proving its title but the defendant/appellant have failed to bring on record any documents to rebut the same. The appellant/State has miserably failed to substantiate the plea that the land was Khas Mahal property or lease hold property. 14. Thus, in view of the evidence on record and discussions made hereinabove, it is held that the impugned judgment and decree of the learned court below does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 15. In the result, this first appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned court below is hereby affirmed. 16. Office is directed to prepare the decree accordingly.