Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 695 (JHR)

Mahendra Ram v. C. M. D. Tata Steel Ltd.

2020-07-01

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

body2020
JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar Choudhary, J. 1. Heard the parties through Video Conferencing. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the Judgment and decree dated 23.01.2009 in Title Suit No. 82 of 2007 passed by learned Sub-Judge-I, Hazaribagh whereby and where under learned Sub-Judge-I, Hazaribagh has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff filed with a prayer for declaration of title over the suit land along with the cost and other reliefs. 3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that Rathera Ram, Badri Baitha, Raman Mahto, Bansi Ram S/o. Hari Ram, Bansi Ram S/o. Chaman Ram, Lakhan Ram, Mokhan Ram, Diga Mahto, Wahid Ali and Naresh Singh Das Gupta acquired the land of Khata no. 1, plot nos. 17, 18, 21, in total area 38 Acres of village Parsabeda, P.S. Mandu, District-Hazaribagh through Hukumnama granted by Ex-landlord in the year 1934. The said land was recorded Gairmajarua Khas in the cadastral survey. Later on, the plaintiffs reclaimed the said land with great labour at their own cost. After granting of Hukumnama, Zamindari rent receipts were issued to the plaintiffs. After vesting of the Zamindari, the name of the plaintiffs have been registered in Register-II of the Circle Office of block-Mandu and revenue receipts were issued and the plaintiffs have been paying rent till date of filing of suit. The plaintiff no. 1 is the son of Rathera Ram. Raman Mahto, has transferred his share in favour of plaintiff no. 3-Kameshwar Mahto through Bazinama and plaintiff no. 4, being the son of Bansi Ram, S/o. Hari Ram, inherited his property after the death Bansi Ram. The plaintiff no. 5 Manraj Ram is the son of Bansi Ram, s/o. Chaman Ram and as father of the plaintiff no. 5 has become old and unable to attend the Court, hence, the plaintiff no. 5 is representing him in this suit. Similarly, the plaintiff no. 6 is representing his old father Diga Mahto and plaintiff no. 7 is son of Wahid Ali-since deceased, whereas plaintiff no. 8 is the son of Narsingh Das Gupta-since deceased. Plaintiff no. 9 is representing his old father Lakhan Ram. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff nos. 1 to 6 and 9 to 10 are the occupancy and settled Raiyats of the suit lands. 7 is son of Wahid Ali-since deceased, whereas plaintiff no. 8 is the son of Narsingh Das Gupta-since deceased. Plaintiff no. 9 is representing his old father Lakhan Ram. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff nos. 1 to 6 and 9 to 10 are the occupancy and settled Raiyats of the suit lands. The further case of the plaintiffs is that the forest settlement officer has released the suit land of Khata no. 1, plot no. 17, area 12.23 Acre, plot no. 21, area 7.12 Acres and plot no. 18, Area 18.65 acres, total area 38.00 Acres, in favour of plaintiffs vide case no. 335/63-64, vide order dated 16.12.64 and since then, the plaintiffs have been in actual possession of the suit land and converted the same to paddy lands. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the staff of the company of the defendants without having any right, title and interest, dug some portion of the suit land and took out minerals from there. Though, the plaintiffs protested but the defendants did not obey them. The plaintiffs sent notice through their lawyers on 26.02.2007 and 29.03.2007 to defendant no. 2 but defendant no. 2 did not reply to the same. 4. On the other hand, the case of the defendants is that the suit of the plaintiffs suffers from misjoinder of defendant no. 1 and non-joinder of the company itself and there is no cause of action for the suit. It is also the case of the defendants that most part of the suit lands, has already been exploited for mining operations and the defendants have already been carrying out several activities over the portions of the suit lands by building roads etc. and the company has been in possession of the suit land. So, the plaintiffs being not in possession of the suit land should pray for recovery of the possession or else, the suit is not maintainable. and the company has been in possession of the suit land. So, the plaintiffs being not in possession of the suit land should pray for recovery of the possession or else, the suit is not maintainable. The defendants admit that the suit land was recorded as Gairmajarua Khas but they denied that the plaintiffs or from whom, they claimed to have acquired right, title, interest over the suit land, ever reclaimed the suit land by taking permission from the Ex-landlord and no occasion arose for the Ex-landlord to depute his Amin to measure and classify the alleged reclaimed land and Ex-landlord never granted any Hukumnama nor was any occasion ever arose for the same and the documents placed by the plaintiffs are manufactured documents. It is also the case of the defendants that the plaintiffs somehow or other have become successful in getting name of alleged settles entered in antedated manner in Register-II and accordingly, obtained certain antedated Government rent receipts by manipulating things in collusion with the Karmachari and other staffs of Circle Office, Mandu and they are blackmailing the defendants. It is also the case of the defendants that suit land was never converted into paddy field. The defendants further pleaded that the management of the company of the defendants for exploitation of surface of lands of suit lands for the purpose of mining operation have obtained necessary permission from the competent officer of the Government within the meaning of section 27(1) (a) of the Mineral Concession Rule, 1960 and with respect to Gairmajarua land of village Parsabera including other villages in respect of lands of plot nos. 17, 18 and 21. The management of the company has also obtained necessary sanctions of the West Bokaro to use, occupy and exploit portions of the lands of different khatas of different villages including village Parsabera which were so notified as reserved forest. It is also the case of the defendants that out of the said three plots nos. being 17, 18 and 21, an area of 6.85 acres of plot no. 17, 42.7 acres of plot no. 18 and 1.20 acres of land of plot no. 21 along with other lands had been notified as reserved forest and management of the defendant's company have obtained permission to use, occupy and exploit the land of plot nos. being 17, 18 and 21, an area of 6.85 acres of plot no. 17, 42.7 acres of plot no. 18 and 1.20 acres of land of plot no. 21 along with other lands had been notified as reserved forest and management of the defendant's company have obtained permission to use, occupy and exploit the land of plot nos. 17, 18 and 21 and management of the company is paying surface rent to the competent authority in respect of Gairmajarua land in question and neither the alleged settles nor the plaintiffs have ever came in possession of the suit land rather defendant's company after obtaining permission, has been exercising all sorts of its rights, title and possession over the land in question. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the learned Court below framed the following six issues: i. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? ii. Whether the plaintiffs have got any valid cause of action for the present suit? iii. Whether the suit suffers from misjoinder of defendant no. 1 and non-joinder of the company itself? iv. Whether the suit is hit by the provisions of Specific Relief Act? v. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for any reliefs as claimed in their plaint? vi. To what relief or reliefs, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled to? 6. In support of their case, the plaintiffs have altogether examined six witnesses. P.W. 1-Munshi Ravidas has stated that the plaintiffs in 1934, have received Hukumnama from Ex-landlord and also obtained Zamindari receipts and names of the plaintiffs have been registered in Register-II and Government receipt has also been issued in their name. The plaintiffs have all along been in possession of the suit land. P.W. 1 filed his examination-in-chief in shape of affidavit on 04.03.2008. Therein, he has mentioned that now also, the plaintiffs have stacked rock on the suit land. In his cross-examination, P.W. 1 stated that in that Mauja, no mining work is going on but again stated that in that Mauja, mining of Tata Company is going on. 7. P.W. 2-Bansi Ravidas, s/o Chaman Bihari Ravidas, in his examination-in-chief filed in shape of affidavit has stated that he and others have received the suit land in the year 1934 by way of Hukumnama and thereafter, Zamindari receipt was issued in their name and they have all along been in possession of the suit land. 7. P.W. 2-Bansi Ravidas, s/o Chaman Bihari Ravidas, in his examination-in-chief filed in shape of affidavit has stated that he and others have received the suit land in the year 1934 by way of Hukumnama and thereafter, Zamindari receipt was issued in their name and they have all along been in possession of the suit land. The defendants have no possession over the suit land. In his cross-examination, P.W. 2 has stated that he does not know that colliery of Tata company is running since 1947-48. 8. P.W. 3-Bhaginath Mahto is the plaintiff no. 6. He has corroborated the averments made in the plaint by filing an affidavit in shape of examination-in-chief. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he cannot say since when the colliery of Tata Company is running in Parsabera. Tata Company has its colliery, construction, building and road but he cannot say on which, plot of Parsabera building or plant is situated and he has denied having knowledge about the activities carried out by Tata Company over the suit land. 9. P.W. 4-Bado Mahto-is a formal witness. He has proved the Government land revenue receipts. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he is farmer by profession. 10. P.W. 5-Gorakh Bhagat, in his examination-in-chief, filed by way of affidavit, has stated that the plaintiffs have obtained the suit land by Hukumnama. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has no knowledge about the dimension of plots of land. 11. P.W. 6-Manraj Ram is also a formal witness and he has proved the Jamabandi register. 12. Besides the oral testimony, the plaintiffs have also proved the following documents: Ext. 1 is Map Ext. 2 is report of Amin. Ext. 3 is certified copy of order dated 16.12.64 passed by the Court of Forest Settlement Officer, Hazaribagh. Ext. 4 is series of the revenue receipts issued by Ramgarh Raj. Ext. 5 is Advocate's notice. Ext. 6 is series are the revenue receipts issued by the State Government. Ext. 7 is Asami receipt of Ramgarh Raj. Ext. 8 is the certified copy of Zamabandi Register-II of Ramgarh Raj. Ext. 9 is Hukumnama. 13. From the side of the defendants, Ajay Jha has been examined as D.W. 1. Ext. 5 is Advocate's notice. Ext. 6 is series are the revenue receipts issued by the State Government. Ext. 7 is Asami receipt of Ramgarh Raj. Ext. 8 is the certified copy of Zamabandi Register-II of Ramgarh Raj. Ext. 9 is Hukumnama. 13. From the side of the defendants, Ajay Jha has been examined as D.W. 1. In his examination-in-chief, filed in shape of an affidavit, he has stated that after paying the compensation amount, the defendant company obtained the order for carrying out mining activity over the protected forest land of an area of 6.85 acres from plot no. 17, 42.78 acres from plot no. 18 and 1.20 acres from plot no. 21 and from the rest Gairmajarua land, the management of the defendant company has obtained order under section 27 (1) (d) of Mineral Concession Rule, 1960 from the then Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh and the company is carrying out mining activities and have constructed road, building etc.. None of the parts of the land is field and the plaintiffs or their ancestors were never in possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs have produced the forged documents and are blackmailing the company on the basis of the said documents. D.W. 1 denied the averments made in the plaint. In his cross-examination, he has stated that in the year of 1776, the Deputy Commissioner issued an order and the company obtained lease from the State Government in 1973 and they are paying surface rent for the land. 14. D.W. 2-Ajay Thakur has stated similar facts as that of D.W. 1 and has also, proved the documents, which have been marked as exhibits. In his cross-examination, D.W. 2 has stated that he has seen the documents. 15. D.W. 3-Antaryami Thakur has also stated about the averments made in the written statement. 16. Besides the oral testimony, the defendant has proved following documents which have been marked exhibits: Ext. A-is attested copy of letter dated 5th April, 1974 issued by Secretary West Bokaro Ltd. to the Divisional forest officer, East Division, Hazaribagh. Ext. A/1 is the attested copy of order of Divisional Forest Officer, East Division, Hazaribagh dated 02.11.76. Ext. B-is the attested copy of letter dated 05.08.77 issued by office of the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh to the Chief Mining Engineer, West Bokaro, Hazaribagh Ext. Ext. A/1 is the attested copy of order of Divisional Forest Officer, East Division, Hazaribagh dated 02.11.76. Ext. B-is the attested copy of letter dated 05.08.77 issued by office of the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh to the Chief Mining Engineer, West Bokaro, Hazaribagh Ext. C is the original document of Divisional Forest Officer, Ramgarh dated 12 August, 2008 of Head (Administration), West Bokaro Division. Ext. D is the letter dated 14.08.2008 issued by DFO Ramgarh addressed to the West Bokaro, Ramgarh. Ext. E is the attested copy of map of Forest Department. Ext. F is also a map prepared in the year of 2006. Ext. G is the letter dated 22.01.2003 issued by Head, West Bokaro addressed to the District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh. Ext. H is a letter dated 07.03.2006 addressed to the District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh. Ext. I is a letter dated 13.02.2007 addressed to the District Mining Officer, Hazaribagh. 17. Learned trial Court first took up issue no. 5 and observed that neither Ext. 1 which is map nor the Ext. 2-which is report of Amin, is document of title. In respect of Ext. 3-which is the order dated 16.12.64 passed by the Court of Forest Settlement Officer, Hazaribagh, it was observed by the learned trial court that therein the Government was not a party to the proceeding nor it is a decree of title and it also further observed the settled principle of law that revenue receipts are not the documents of title and similarly Jamindari receipts in Jamabandi are also not the documents of title and Ext. 9 is not a registered document. In respect of the documents proved by the defendants, learned trial Court observed that admittedly the suit land is Gairmajarua land so, its title vests with the State Government and from the documents proved by the defendants, it is established that the State Government has given required permission and sanction to the defendant-company to use it for mining purpose and the plaintiffs have failed to produce any document of title and the Sada Hukumnama filed by the plaintiff is not admissible in evidence, so the same cannot be relied upon and ultimately held that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their case that they are rightful owner of the suit land. Learned trial Court answered issued no. Learned trial Court answered issued no. 3 and 4 by holding that the plaintiffs have not made the State Government a party in this suit even though, admittedly, the suit land is recorded as Gairmajarua land and decided issue no. 3 and 4 in favour of defendant and against the plaintiffs. In answering issue no. 1 and 2, learned Court below held that the suit is not maintainable as framed and filed as no valid cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file the suit and decided issue no. 1 and 2 against the plaintiffs and in favor of defendants and answered issue no. 6 by holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Bhavesh Kumar submitted that the learned Court below committed grave error of law in passing the impugned judgment as the Hukumnama issued by the Ex-landlord was valid title document which is supported by the documents such as the Government report and rent receipts. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that learned Court below erroneously failed to take into consideration that the order passed by the Forest Settlement Officer and failed to appreciate that landlord was very much entitled to settle the Gairmajarua khas land as admitted by D.W. 2. Mr. Bhavesh Kumar, in respect of his contention that even though hukumnama is not admissible in evidence yet other evidence in the record regarding the possession of the plaintiffs can be looked into, relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Mt. Ugni and another v. Chowa Mahto and other reported in AIR 1968 Pat. 302, paragraph 14 of which reads as under:- "14. On the basis of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ramnath Mandal's case, AIR 1964 Pat 1 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Sri Sita Maharani's case,: AIR 1955 SC 328 . Mr. Prem Lall laid stress that, once the unregistered hukumnama was held to be inadmissible as evidence of title, other evidence to prove the lease or its terms will be precluded under Section 91 of the Evidence Act. He, therefore, submitted that oral evidence was not admissible to prove raiyati interest on the strength of actual possession and payment of rent to the landlord. He, therefore, submitted that oral evidence was not admissible to prove raiyati interest on the strength of actual possession and payment of rent to the landlord. The correctness of the first part of the submission of the learned counsel cannot be doubted as it has been said by the Full Bench in Ramnath Mandal's case, AIR 1964 SC 1 that, if a lease is compulsorily registrable under S. 17 of the Registration Act and, "if unregistered, the lease will be inadmissible in evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act and other evidence if its terms will be precluded under Section 91 of the Evidence Act." To the same effect is the observation of Jafar Imam, J., in Sita Maharani's case, AIR 1964 SC 1 that, since the hukumnama was not registered, it was inadmissible and no evidence could be given as to its terms. But it does not mean that other evidence is not admissible to prove the tenancy by proving the possession of the raiyat and payment of rent to, and its acceptance by, the landlord. Section 91 of the Evidence Act only excludes other evidence of terms of a document but not of existence, of the contract or the relationship of landlord and tenant brought about by possession and payment of rent." (Emphasis Supplied) Hence, it is submitted by Mr. Bhavesh Kumar that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the title of the plaintiffs be declared over the suit land. 19. Mr. G.M. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, defended the impugned judgment and submitted that as compliance of provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, which contemplates furnishing of return by the Ex-Landlord containing the names of the plaintiffs or their predecessors in interest, description of area and the plots of which settlement have been made by the Ex-Landlord and that too before the cutoff date 1.1.1946, having not been made, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim right, title and interest on the basis of such settlement by the Ex-Landlord. In support of his contention that right, title and interest over any property cannot be claimed by a party to a suit based on settlement made by the Ex-landlord unless there is compliance of provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, which contemplates furnishing of return by the Ex-Landlord containing the names of the persons, description of area and the plots of which settlement have been made by the Ex-Landlord and that too before the cutoff date 1.1.1946, Mr. Mishra relied upon the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court reported in 2017 1 JLJR 508 in the case of M/s. India Estates Development Limited Ranchi vs. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary and Ors., paragraph 9 of which reads as under: "9. Xxxxxxxxxxx The facts of the case narrated herein above throws few questions which are being dwelled upon hereinafter. Settlement of land by Ex-Landlord in favour of the petitioner for claiming right, title and ownership of the property and possession thereof would depend also upon compliance of provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, which contemplates furnishing of return by the Ex-Landlord containing the names of the persons, description of area and the plots of which settlement have been made by the Ex-Landlord and that too before the cut off date 1.1.1946. Xxxxxxxxxxxx." (Emphasis Supplied) It is further submitted by Mr. Mishra that as the plaintiffs have failed to put forth any evidence in the record regarding filing of return by the Ex-landlord, so no right, title or interest in respect of the suit land will accrue to the plaintiffs or their predecessor in interest, who claimed to be the persons in whose favour the settlement has been made on the basis of such Hukumnama. It is further submitted by Mr. Mishra that as the defendants by ample and cogent evidence have proved the possession of the Tata company of which, the defendants are employees, from the year 1976 and the defendants have also adduced cogent evidence that company of the defendants have constructed roads, buildings etc. It is further submitted by Mr. Mishra that as the defendants by ample and cogent evidence have proved the possession of the Tata company of which, the defendants are employees, from the year 1976 and the defendants have also adduced cogent evidence that company of the defendants have constructed roads, buildings etc. and carrying on mining work over the suit land and their evidence is trustworthy and could not be dislodged by the plaintiffs rather the witnesses of the plaintiffs have taken evasive stand by denying the knowledge of every act of the defendants' company done over the place of occurrence land, to show the possession of the defendants' company, hence, learned Court below has rightly held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their right or title over the place of occurrence land. It is also submitted by Mr. Mishra that there is absolutely no evidence in the record regarding the cause of action for the suit and it is also submitted that issue of a legal notice cannot give rise to a cause of action and the alleged cause of action could have been a threat to the possession of the plaintiffs by any overt act by the defendants and the witnesses of the plaintiffs have deliberately resorted to falsehood to save them from being exposed to the fact that they have never been in possession of the suit land, hence, it is submitted that the learned trial court having rightly dismissed the suit, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 20. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, the following points for determination that crop up in this appeal: (i) Whether Hukumnama is a valid title document and the learned trial court erred by not considering the same to declare the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land? (ii) Whether learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit for the failure of the plaintiffs to prove their title? 21. (ii) Whether learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit for the failure of the plaintiffs to prove their title? 21. So far as the first point for determination regarding Hukumnama is concerned it is pertinent to mention here that, it is a settled principle of law that in a Hukumnama wherein the settlement of the Raiyati interest with any person had been reduced to writing; requires registration and if it is not registered, it is inadmissible and no evidence could be given as to its terms and the contents as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sri S. Sita Maharani and others v. Chhedi Mahto and others reported in AIR 1955 SC 328 . It is needless to mention that by the Hukumnama filed in this case the settlement of the Raiyati interest with the plaintiffs and their predecessors in interest had been reduced to writing hence the same requires registration but as the same is not registered, it is inadmissible and no evidence could be given as to its terms and the contents. Hence the same is of no help to the plaintiffs. Hence the learned trial court was not in error by not considering the same to declare the title of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Thus the first point for determination is answered in negative against the plaintiffs. 22. So far as the second point for determination is concerned it is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiffs have failed to adduce any evidence whatsoever regarding any cause of action; as none of the witnesses of the plaintiffs has stated about any overt act done by the defendants by carrying out any mining activity or otherwise casting a cloud upon the possession of the plaintiffs as pleaded in their plaint by the plaintiffs that the staff of the company of the defendants without having any right, title and interest, dug some portion of the suit land and took out minerals from there. There is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that in a case like this certainly a legal notice by the plaintiff to the defendant by itself, cannot give rise to a cause of action for filing a suit. 23. There is force in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that in a case like this certainly a legal notice by the plaintiff to the defendant by itself, cannot give rise to a cause of action for filing a suit. 23. As is apparent from the testimonies of the material witnesses of the plaintiffs, to save themselves from being exposed that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land at least at any time from the year 1976 onwards, these witnesses in their cross examination have ducked the suggestions relating to the possession of the defendants' company over the suit land by expressing ignorance about the same and not even making a specific denial of the said suggestions. Rather witnesses of the plaintiffs have taken evasive stand by denying knowledge about the existence of any road or building over the suit land. They even cannot say since when the mining activity is carried out by the company of the defendants thereby not disputing that mining activity is carried out by the company of the defendants in the locality. It is highly unlikely that the mining activity which is carried out in large scale, will escape the notice of all the material witnesses of the plaintiffs. Similarly it is also highly unlikely that the existence of road and buildings, which are very prominent features of patch of land of 30 Acres, will escape the notice of the material witnesses of the plaintiffs and that they will not have any knowledge whether any building or road exists over the suit land. This conduct of the witnesses certainly impeaches their credibility. So far as the case of Mt. Ugni and another v. Chowa Mahto and others (supra) is concerned, in that case admittedly, the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit land for more than 12 years, which is not the fact in this case, rather, the pleadings of the defendants and the evidence put forth by both parties, indicates the defendants had been in possession and carrying out the mining activities over the place of occurrence land at least from the year 1976. The evidence put forth by the plaintiffs as it relates to the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land after 1976 onwards is general and omnibus. The evidence put forth by the plaintiffs as it relates to the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land after 1976 onwards is general and omnibus. It is needless to mention that the plaintiffs failed to file any valid document in support of their title over the suit land. Certainly the land revenue receipts or even the order of the officer of the forest department cannot be treated as documents of title, when the plaintiffs failed to put forth clinching evidence regarding their possession over the suit land. 24. Because of the failure on the part of the plaintiffs to put forth evidence regarding furnishing of return by the Ex-Landlord containing the names of the plaintiffs or their predecessors in interest, description of area and the plots of which settlement have been made by the Ex-Landlord before the cutoff date 1.1.1946, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim right, title and interest on the basis of such settlement by the Ex-Landlord. Further admittedly the suit land being a Gairmajarua land, State is a necessary party to a suit for declaration of title. 25. On the other hand the evidence in the record put forth by the defendants through their witnesses and documents that the company of the defendants has been carrying out mining activities and has constructed roads and buildings over suit land, has not been dislodged. Nothing has been elicited in the cross examination of the witnesses of the defendants to discredit their testimony. These witnesses have stated in detail about the possession of the company of the defendants over the suit land and other land of the locality by carrying out mining activity and also constructing roads and buildings. The fact that the management of the company of the defendants for exploitation of surface of lands of suit lands for the purpose of mining operation have obtained necessary permission from the competent officer of the Government within the meaning of section 27 (1) (a) of the Mineral Concession Rule, 1960 and with respect to Gairmajarua land of village Parsabera including other villages in respect of lands of plot nos. 17, 18 and 21 and the management of the company has also obtained necessary sanctions of the West Bokaro to use, occupy and exploit portions of the lands of different khatas of different villages including village Parsabera which were so notified as reserved forest has been proved by the defendants and there is no serious dispute even by the plaintiffs in this respect. In this backdrop this court has no hesitation in holding that the plaintiffs have failed to put forth sufficient evidence in the record to establish their right, title and interest over the suit land and the learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit for the failure of the plaintiffs to prove their title. The second point for determination is answered accordingly. 26. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment or findings arrived at by the trial Court. Thus, this appeal being without any merit is dismissed but in the circumstances, without any costs. 27. Let the lower court record be sent back to the trial court with a copy of this judgment forthwith.