Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1074 (PAT)

Ganesh Rai, S/o Sarakhi Rai v. Devendra Kumar

2019-08-01

SANJAY PRIYA

body2019
JUDGMENT : This First Appeal has been filed by the Defendants-appellants against the judgment dated 02.08.1995 passed by Sub Judge II, Naugachia in Title Suit no. 19 of 1988, whereby the suit was decreed on contest against the defendants for the reliefs as sought declaring that the plaintiffs have right, title and interest in the suit land and that the lands were neither donated to the Bhoodan Yagna committee, nor the same was validly confirmed. It has further been declared that the Bhoodan yagna committee had no right to make any settlement of the suit land with the members of defendants 2nd party. The survey records of right prepared in their names with respect to the land of Schedule II is incorrect and without jurisdiction. 2. The plaintiff-respondent 1st set has filed the suit for declaration that Giribar Prasad Singh or his heirs had no right to donate the lands being 13 bighas, 13 katha, 11 dhurs and 10 dhurki of plot no. 3827 of Mouza-Pratap Nagar, as described in Schedule -I of the plaint, to the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Committee. The plaintiffs sought further declaration that said committee never settled any land of Schedule-II which is part of Schedule-I land to defendant 2nd party nor did they acquire right, title and interest in the aforesaid land. The plaintiffs have prayed for decree of declaration of their title to the aforesaid land and for the declaration that survey record of right prepared in the name of defendants is incorrect. 3. The case of the plaintiffs’ as per plaint, in short, is that the land of CS khata no. 1596, was a Gair Majaruwa Malik land appertaining to Tauzi no. 4318. Babu Hanuman Prasad Singh and Babu Gajadhar Prasad Singh were two Zamindars of this Tauzi having equal shares. They were in possession of their share. They settled the land of Schedule-I with the plaintiffs in 1346 Fasli i.e. the year 1939 orally and put them in possession of the said land. The Zamindars also granted Parwangi in proof of the settlement and the plaintiffs remained and continued in possession of the same. 4. The further case of the plaintiffs is that after vesting of zamindari they submitted return of the said land in favour of plaintiffs. The State of Bihar has accepted the plaintiffs as Raiyat and opened Jamabandi in their name vide Jamabandi no. 4. The further case of the plaintiffs is that after vesting of zamindari they submitted return of the said land in favour of plaintiffs. The State of Bihar has accepted the plaintiffs as Raiyat and opened Jamabandi in their name vide Jamabandi no. 90 in Register-II and granting rent receipts. 5. Further case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant 2nd party (appellants) are threatening them to dispossess from the aforesaid suit land. They are laying claim on the basis that heirs of the ex–landlord had donated the land to the Bhoodan Yagna Committee in 1956-57. The said committee had settled the land of Schedule-II to them separately. 6. The plaintiffs have further stated in the plaint that the ex-landlord had no right to make any donation to the Bhoodan Yagna Committee nor the Bhoodan Yagna Committee had right to settle the land to the defendants 2nd set. The defendants second set after bringing the Amlas of the survey in their collusion got prepared the record of right in their name which is incorrect and without jurisdiction. 7. The plaintiffs have also averred in the plaint that defendants 2nd set threatened on 21.04.1987 to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. They gave notice to them through their lawyer and thereafter filed the instant suit. 8. The defendant nos. 5, 12A, 12B have filed separate written statement and have admitted the case of the plaintiffs. 9. The common written statements have been filed by defendant nos. 3,7,8,9, 10 and 12. They have contested the claim of the plaintiffs, and stated that 50 bighas of land, appertaining to plot no. 3827 was donated to the Bhoodan Yagan Committee in the year 1953 by landlord Giribar Prasad Singh and seven others and Daan Patra was confirmed by the Revenue Authorities in the year 1957-58. The Bhoodan Yagan Committee distributed the land to these defendants as mentioned in detail in the written statement. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that after the death of defendant no.8, his widow, namely, Panki Devi has again filed written statement. 11. Bhoodan Yagan Committee ( defendant 1st party) has also filed separate written statement. 12. The written statement filed by defendants contesting the suit are identical. They have alleged that plaintiffs have no valid cause of action for the suit. 13. 11. Bhoodan Yagan Committee ( defendant 1st party) has also filed separate written statement. 12. The written statement filed by defendants contesting the suit are identical. They have alleged that plaintiffs have no valid cause of action for the suit. 13. As per written statement, Giribar Prasad Singh, Braj Nandan Prasad Singh, Gajadhar Prasad Singh, Mithan Prasad Singh, Rameshwar Prasad Singh, Maheshwari Prasad Singh, Mathura Prasad Singh and Abhinandan Prasad Singh all the eight landlords donated their lands separately to Bhoodan Yagna Committee bearing CS Plot No. 3827 under Khata No. 1596 in the year 1953. The total area donated by all of them was 50 bighas. The Revenue Authority of Bhagalpur in 1958 confirmed the donation. It is further stated in written statement that Hanuman Prasad Singh and Vishnu Dayal Singh were not the Zamindars of this village. It is baseless to say that plaintiffs took settlement from the Zamindars and came in possession of the said lands. No return was submitted in the name of the plaintiffs. Hence, the receipt of Jamabandi no. 90 is ineffective. The plaintiffs being not in possession over the suit land the question of threat of dispossession by the defendants did not arise. The contesting defendants here also contended that khatiyan was finally published on 06.01.1978 and, hence, the suit is barred by limitation. 14. It is also submitted in the written statement that the Survey Authorities, after properly verifying the spot, has correctly prepared the record of right and no objection was raised against the confirmation made by the Revenue Authorities. The Court has no jurisdiction to grant relief as prayed by plaintiffs. 15. It is also stated in the written statement that defendant 2nd parties were Battaidars of the suit land from before. The Bhoodan Yagna Committee has therefore distributed the land to them on the basis of the certificates. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs have filed the suit with an intention to grab the lands and are not entitled to any relief, and as such, the suit is fit to be dismissed. 16. In view of the pleadings of the parties, total 11 issues have been settled in the court below. 17. Issue nos. 4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10 are the important issues. The Court below has discussed the issue nos. 4 to 8 together in para 12 of the impugned judgment. 18. 16. In view of the pleadings of the parties, total 11 issues have been settled in the court below. 17. Issue nos. 4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10 are the important issues. The Court below has discussed the issue nos. 4 to 8 together in para 12 of the impugned judgment. 18. Altogether 12 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. Defendants have also adduced 12 witnesses. 19. The plaintiffs have produced documentary evidence before the Trial Court i.e. C.S. khatiyan Ext.2, Parwangi Ext. 3, Ext-1/a to 1/c is the rent receipt, Ext. 7 is the Jamabandi. 20. PW-12 is plaintiff himself. He has stated in his evidence that Gajadhar Prasad Singh and Hanuman Prasad Singh of Pakara were the ex-Zamindars of land appertaining to CS khata no. 1596, Touzi no. 4318 having 8 anna share each. Similarly, PW-1 has stated that Gajadhar Prasad Singh and Hanuman Prasad Singh were the ex-landlord of the village. This witness has deposed in his cross-examination that he is purohit of the family of Hanuman Prasad Singh, and as such, he had concern with religious matter of the family. PW-2 has also stated in his evidence that Hanuman Prasad Singh and Gajadhar Prasad Singh were Zamindars of the suit village. The witnesses have stated that plaintiffs have taken settlement of the land from ex-landlord, namely, Gajadhar Prasad Singh and Hanuman Prasad Singh and no cross-examination on this point has been made. PW’s ,9, 10 and 11 are all formal witnesses. 21. On the other hand, defendants have examined 12 witnesses. The specific evidence of plaintiffs is that Hanuman Prasad Singh and Gajadhar Prasad Singh were ex-Zamindars. They were resident of village-Pakara, Touzi Pratap Nagar. The suit land lies in Mouja- Pratap Nagar. 22. DW-1 has deposed in his evidence that Bhoodan Yagna Committee acquired the land from Giribar Prasad Singh and others who were Zamindars of village Pakara. DW-2 did not say who was the Zamindars of the suit land. Similarly, DW-3 also did not speak who was Zamindar. DW’s 4, 5 and 6 are the formal witnesses. DW-7 has stated that Pakarawala had donated the lands to Bhoodan Yagna Committee. DWs 8 and 9 are formal witnesses. DW-10 has stated in his evidence that Zamindars of Pakara donated the land whereas the suit land were under the Pratap Nagar Zamindari. DW-10 is a formal witness. DW’s 4, 5 and 6 are the formal witnesses. DW-7 has stated that Pakarawala had donated the lands to Bhoodan Yagna Committee. DWs 8 and 9 are formal witnesses. DW-10 has stated in his evidence that Zamindars of Pakara donated the land whereas the suit land were under the Pratap Nagar Zamindari. DW-10 is a formal witness. Similarly DW-11 also did not speak who is the Zamindar of Pratap Nagar. So is the case with D.W12. He also did not speak on the subject. In this manner, the plaintiffs have adduced evidence that Gajadhar Prasad Singh and Hanuman Prasad Singh were the Zamindars of the suit lands. 23. DW-1 has stated that Bhoodan Yagna Committee acquired the land from Giribar Prasad Singh and others who were Zamindars of village Pakara. 24. Learned counsel for the defendants-appellants has submitted that settlement of the plaintiffs on his own evidence was oral, no Parwangi or return was produced by the plaintiffs. It was not said what was the Najarana amount or other terms and conditions of the settlement. 25. Learned counsel for the defendants-appellants has further submitted that 50 bighas of plot no. 3827 has been donated to Bhoodan Yagna Committee and several plots have been carved out from this old plot no. 3827 which have been entered in the survey in the name of Raiyats who were connected with Bhoodan Yagna Committee. It is also submitted that plot no. 3827 is a big plot and there is no plot at spot measuring 13 Bighas, 13 kathas, 11 ½ dhurs. Brij Nandan Prasad Singh, and Giribar Prasad Singh and several others have donated the land to Bhoodan Yagna Committee which is in consonance with the case of the defendant 2nd party vide Ext. D/2, D/4 and Ext D, D1, D3, D5 to D7. 26. Learned counsel for the defendants –appellants has further submitted boundary of 50 bighas of land donated to Bhoodan Yagna-Committee Bhagalpur by Ext. D to D7 are same. Khatiyan is in the name of Bhoodan Yagna Committee, Bhagalpur. The plaintiffs-respondents have nothing to do with 50 bighas of land donated by the landlords Gajadhar Prasad Singh and Hanuman Prasad Singh, their descendants and co-sharers. 27. The Revisional survey has been concluded in the year 1970. The 50 bighas of land donated by above-mentioned ex-landlord bearing khata no. Khatiyan is in the name of Bhoodan Yagna Committee, Bhagalpur. The plaintiffs-respondents have nothing to do with 50 bighas of land donated by the landlords Gajadhar Prasad Singh and Hanuman Prasad Singh, their descendants and co-sharers. 27. The Revisional survey has been concluded in the year 1970. The 50 bighas of land donated by above-mentioned ex-landlord bearing khata no. 4142 and various plots as recorded in Revisional survey were entered in the name of Bhoodan Yagna Committee, Bhaglpur. The Parcha and possession as absolute owner was given to the appellants as per their possession as Battaidar since before. Jamabandi was created in the name of Vinoba Bhave and rent is being realized since 1969-70 up-to-date vide Ext. 7. 28. Learned counsel for the defendants-appellants have finally argued that survey concluded in 1970. The appellants are in possession since before 1970. The suit is hopelessly barred by limitation vide section 58 of the Limitation Act. The suit for declaration should be filed within 3 years but the suit was filed in 1988 much after the expiry of limitation. 29. Learned counsel for the defendants-appellants has submitted that Court below has given finding that Hanuman Prasad Singh and Gajadhar Prasad Singh were the Zamindars of the disputed land. Giribar Prasad Singh and others were not the Zamindars of the land. Learned counsel for the defendants-appellants has submitted that admittedly one of the donor was Gajadhar Prasad Singh vide Ext. D7. 30. DW-1 Ganesh Rai has stated in his evidence in para 4 that land was donated by Zamindar of Pakara village, namely Giribar Prasad Singh, Mathura Prasad Singh, Abhinandan Prasad Singh, Brij Nandan Prasad Singh, Gajadhar Prasad Singh, Maheshwar Prasad Singh and Mithan Prasad Singh. Thus, land was donated by Gajadhar Prasad Singh and his co-sharers and descendants and also Abhinandan Prasad Singh S/o Hanuman Prasad Singh and other co-sharers and descendants of Hanuman Prasad Singh. The Court below has failed to consider the evidence of DW-1 Ganesh Rai in paragraph nos. 4 and 9 and also the Daan Patra of Gajadhar Prasad Singh vide Ext. D/7, Daan Patra of Abhinandan Prasad Singh S/o Hanuman Prasad Singh vide Ext. D/3. It is wrong to say that Giribar Prasad Singh and 7 other donors were not the Zamindars of the land. 31. 4 and 9 and also the Daan Patra of Gajadhar Prasad Singh vide Ext. D/7, Daan Patra of Abhinandan Prasad Singh S/o Hanuman Prasad Singh vide Ext. D/3. It is wrong to say that Giribar Prasad Singh and 7 other donors were not the Zamindars of the land. 31. Learned counsel for the defendants-appellants has also argued that Court below is wrong in holding that the defendants are claiming land as per donation from Giribar Prasad Singh and others. The defendants are claiming the land on the basis of donation made by Gajadhar Prasad Singh as stated in evidence by DW-1 in para 4 and also donation made by Abhinandan Prasad Singh S/o Hanuman Prasad Singh and others who are either the descendants of admitted Zamindars Hanuman Prasad Singh and Gajadhar Prasad Singh or their co-sharers who have got share in the land, and as such, the donors of the defendants had admittedly right, title and possession of the land which was donated. The other donors, namely, Mathura Prasad Singh, Brijnandan Prasad Singh and Abhinandan Prasad Singh were also the descendants and co-sharers of Hanuman Prasad Singh. Similarly, Giribar Pd. Singh, Mithan Pd. Singh and others are from the family of Gajadhar Prasad Singh. 32. From the Bhoodan Patra Ext. D to D7, it would be apparent that all the donors including Gajadhar Prasad Singh and Abhinandan Prasad Singh S/o Hanuman Prasad Singh were residents of village Pakara which proved that all the donors of village Pakara donated the land in favour of the Bhoodan Yagna Committee. Bhoodan Samiti was in possession having title. The survey record was prepared in the name of Bhoodan Yagna Committee. The Jamabandi (Ext.7) in the name of Vinoba Bhave (Ext.7) is with regard to 50 bighas of land. 33. The learned court below has committed wrong in disbelieving the confirmation on the basis of same boundary. At the time of Dan Patra or confirmation entire donated land of 50 bighas was one plot. During Revisional survey several plots as per donation and possession of different raiyats were created. It is well known that from a big plot if small portion is alienated in that case boundary is given of the entire area with remark Miljumle. 34. At the time of Dan Patra or confirmation entire donated land of 50 bighas was one plot. During Revisional survey several plots as per donation and possession of different raiyats were created. It is well known that from a big plot if small portion is alienated in that case boundary is given of the entire area with remark Miljumle. 34. Learned counsel for appellants-defendants has also submitted that Court below has wrongly rejected notice saying that these papers did not contain the description of the land whereas this notice Daan Patra were attached with all the descriptions of land. The court below has rejected the documentary evidence of defendants wrongly. They are fit to be relied upon. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that court below has committed wrong to say that DW-10 had deposed with regard to donation of land to Bhoodan Yagna. It is submitted that DW 1, 6, 8 and 11 have also specifically stated that land was donated to the Bhoodan Yagna Committee. Besides these evidence documentary evidence as Ext.D to D/7 confirmation order of Daan Patra by Revenue Authority, survey in favour of the Bhoodan Yagna Samiti, Daan Patra in the name of Vinoba Bhave, Mutation order vide Ext. 7 and other documents and evidence conclusively prove that the land was validly donated to defendants 2nd party, parcha was given in 1970 and, thenceforth, they are in peaceful possession of the land till date and are paying rent to the State of Bihar. 35. The only documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs is Parwangi (Ext.2) and receipts. Learned counsel for appellants has submitted that Parwangi is without return and so it is meaningless. The parwangi has not been issued by two Zamindars namely Hanuman Prasad Singh and Gajadhar Prasad Singh as mentioned in the plaint. It has been written by several persons who are not connected with the land. Name has been written in different handwriting and in different ink. The receipts did not create any right and title. The evidence produced by the plaintiffs are not reliable whereas the evidence produced by the defendants are very much reliable. The case of the defendants is well proved by the evidence produced by the plaintiffs themselves. 36. Name has been written in different handwriting and in different ink. The receipts did not create any right and title. The evidence produced by the plaintiffs are not reliable whereas the evidence produced by the defendants are very much reliable. The case of the defendants is well proved by the evidence produced by the plaintiffs themselves. 36. Having heard the parties, this Court finds that as per case of plaintiffs ex-landlord has settled the land of Schedule-I with plaintiffs in 1346 F.S. i.e. 1939 orally and put them in possession over the said land. The Zamindar also granted Parwangi in proof of the settlement. The plaintiffs remained in continued possession over the same. The plaintiffs also paid rent to the Zamindars. The Zamindar submitted return of the said land in favour of the plaintiffs. The State of Bihar on the basis of aforesaid return accepted the plaintiffs as Raiyats and opened the jamabandi no. 90 in favour of the plaintiffs. 37. The cause of action arose to the plaintiffs on 21.4.1984 when defendants threatened them to dispossess from the suit land donated by the heirs of ex-landlord. 38. The case of the defendants in the written statement is that Giribar Prasad Singh, Braj Nandan Prasad Singh, Gajadhar Prasad Singh, Mithan Prasad Singh, Rameshwar Prasad Singh, Maheshwari Prasad Singh, Mathura Prasad Singh, Abhinandan Prasad Singh all the eight landlords donated their land in the year 1953 separately to Bhoodan Yagna Committee appertaining to CS plot no. 3827 under khata no. 1596. The total area donated by all of them were 50 bighas. In 1958 Revenue Authorities of Bhagalpur confirmed the donation. 39. But, during evidence DW-1 has stated in his evidence that Bhoodan Yagna Committee acquired the land from Giribar Prasad Singh and others who were Zamindars of village pakara. As per the case of plaintiffs-respondents Gajadhar Prasad Singh and Hanuman Prasad Singh were the Zamindar of the disputed land. 40. Similarly, DW-2 did not say who was the Zamindar of the land. DW-3 also did not speak who was the Zamindar of the land. DW’s 4, 5 and 6 are all formal witnesses. DW-7 has stated that Pakarawala had donated the lands to Bhoodan Yagna Committee. DW’s 8 and 9 are formal witnesses. DW-10 has stated that Zamindar of Pakara village donated the land whereas the suit land were under Pratap Nagar Zamindari. DW-11 is a formal witness. DW’s 4, 5 and 6 are all formal witnesses. DW-7 has stated that Pakarawala had donated the lands to Bhoodan Yagna Committee. DW’s 8 and 9 are formal witnesses. DW-10 has stated that Zamindar of Pakara village donated the land whereas the suit land were under Pratap Nagar Zamindari. DW-11 is a formal witness. Similarly, DW-12 also did not speak who was the Zamindar of Pratap Nagar. DW-12 did not speak as to who was the Zamindar of Pratap Nagar. 41. In this manner, from the aforesaid evidences, it is apparent that plaintiffs have adduced specific evidence that Hanuman Prasad Singh and Gajadhar Prasad Singh were the Zamindars of the suit land. The defendants did not even suggest to the plaintiffs in course of cross-examination that not the Hanuman Prasad Singh and Gajadhar Prasad Singh but, Giribar Prasad Singh and others were Zamindars of the suit land. Similarly, the witnesses of defendants did not speak in clear terms that Giribar Prasad Singh and others were Zamindars of the suit land. 42. The plaintiffs have produced CS khatiyan (Ext.2) in court below which shows that Hanuman Prasad Singh and others are Zamindars of CS khata no. 1596 having the suit plot being CS plot no. 3827. 43. The defendants, on the other hand, did not produce any paper to show that Giribar Prasad Singh and others were Zamindars of the suit land. 44. The plaintiffs had produced Parwangi in support of the settlement of land by the ex-landlord Gajadhar Prasad Singh and Hanuman Prasad Singh which is marked as Ext. 3. There is mention of specific details of the suit property in the aforesaid Parwangi. The rent receipts vide ext. 1/a, 1/b and 1/c was also filed by the plaintiffs in proof of payment of rent. The issuance of rent receipts shows that State of Bihar recognized the plaintiffs as Raiyats. 45. The defendants, on the other hand, did not bring on record any documentary evidence that Giribar Prasad Singh and others were land lord of properties allegedly donated to Bhoodan Yagna Committee. The defendants have produced in Court the Jamabandi in the name of Vinoba Bhave (Ext.7) for an area of 46 bighas, 18 kathas 8 dhurs. The Jamabandi with respect to the suit land cannot be created for want of specific location. The defendants also produced during evidence notice containing orders for confirmation of the donation. The defendants have produced in Court the Jamabandi in the name of Vinoba Bhave (Ext.7) for an area of 46 bighas, 18 kathas 8 dhurs. The Jamabandi with respect to the suit land cannot be created for want of specific location. The defendants also produced during evidence notice containing orders for confirmation of the donation. The aforesaid papers bear signature of several persons which has been marked as Ext. D to D/7. They are proposed to be the land owners. The order shows that different areas were donated to the Bhoodan Committee. The Revenue Authority confirmed the aforesaid donation but the boundary mentioned in all the donations are the same. 46. Different areas of plot no. 387 cannot be defined by one and the same boundary which shows that Revenue Authority confirmed the same suit land of plot no. 3827 by putting the name of different recipients of donation by indicating different areas. 47. The Court below has rightly declined to rely on those papers to hold the donation of the suit land in favour of Bhoodan Yagna Committee. 48. Ext. E series are the publication of the notice regarding the Daan Patra. This paper did not contain any description of land or the donation. The Court has given a finding that those documents stand no where except to show that Mathura Prasad Singh of village Pakara and not the suit village had donated the same land. The Court below has on the basis of aforesaid evidence disbelieved the Parchas Ext.B to Ext. B/5, the rent receipts granted by State of Bihar Ext. A to A/16, writing of the Karmchari of Bhoodan Committee Ext. C to C/15 and Ext. F Praman Patra issued by the Committee. 49. The witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants did not refer to any paper regarding donation. Moreover, from the evidence of the witnesses it appears that Zamindars Hanuman Prasad Singh and Gajadhar Prasad Singh settled the land in favour of the plaintiffs, in 1346 Fasli i.e. the year 1939 and put them in possession and granted Parwangi in proof of the settlement. The plaintiffs remained in continued possession of the same. The plaintiffs have produced the Parwangi in support of the alleged settlement which is marked as Ext. 3. The Parwangi gives specific details of the suit property. The plaintiffs remained in continued possession of the same. The plaintiffs have produced the Parwangi in support of the alleged settlement which is marked as Ext. 3. The Parwangi gives specific details of the suit property. It is further supported by the rent receipt issued in favour of the plaintiffs vide Ext. 1 to 1/e which shows that State of Bihar also recognized the plaintiffs as the Raiyats after vesting of Zamindari. 50. Therefore, once the land having been already settled by the original Zamindar in 1346 Fasli i.e. 1939 itself in favour of the plaintiffs the heirs of the Zamindars cannot have any right and title to donate the land in 1953 to Bhoodan Yagna Committee appertaining to CS plot no. 3827 under khata no. 1596. 51. The case of the defendants is that total area donated by all the heirs of Zamindar was 50 bighas. Therefore, the subsequent confirmation by the Revenue Authority, Bhagalpur of the donation in the year 1953 was incorrect and not in accordance with law. 52. As per the case of the plaintiffs on the basis of Parwangi issued by the Zamindar and filing of return by Zamindars in favour of plaintiffs after vesting of Zamindari, jamabandi no. 90 has already been created in their favour. The State of Bihar has recognized them as tenant after vesting of Zamindari. The rent receipts are issued in their favour, after creation of Zamabandi vide Ext. 1 to 1/e. They have been coming in continuous possession over the suit land. Therefore, the Daan Patra issued by the Bhoodan Yagna Committee Ext. D to D/7 were all illegal and parcha dharis did not acquire any right, title over the aforesaid land. 53. Therefore, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has rightly come to the finding on the basis of evidence both oral and documentary adduced on behalf of the parries that ex-landlord has already settled the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs by Parwangi. Therefore, the case of donation of land by the heirs of ex-landlord in favour of the Bhoodan Yagna Committee does not get substantiated. The Revenue Authority has committed illegality in confirming the donation. The Bhoodan Yagan Committee had no right to settle the suit land with defendant 2nd party-appellant. 54. Therefore, the case of donation of land by the heirs of ex-landlord in favour of the Bhoodan Yagna Committee does not get substantiated. The Revenue Authority has committed illegality in confirming the donation. The Bhoodan Yagan Committee had no right to settle the suit land with defendant 2nd party-appellant. 54. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree dated 02.08.1995 passed by Sub-Judge-II, Naugachia, in Title Suit No. 19 of 1988. 55. The instant First Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs.