JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. Heard Mr. Arwind Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Nawal Kishore Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. The appellants/appellants/plaintiffs have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 27.03.2019 and decree dated 11.04.2019 passed by the learned District Judge-I, Giridih in Civil Appeal No.34/2015 dismissing the said appeal and affirming the judgment dated 16.09.2015 and decree dated 30.09.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-II, Giridih in Title Suit No.159/2000. 3. The appellants/plaintiffs have instituted the suit for declaration of their title over the suit land more specifically described in the schedule of the plaint and also for confirmation of their possession over the suit land. They also prayed that the order passed by the learned Additional Collector, Giridih in Revision Case No.1/1999-2000 be declared as illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs. 4. The case of the appellants/plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court was as under: The land under Khata no.1, plot no.92, Mauza Jamdiha Gadi Doranda under P.S. Dhanwar, Dist.-Giridih, total area 1.5 acre was purchased by the plaintiffs from one Triloki Pandey on 31.08.78 by paying consideration amount of Rs. 2,000/-and since then they have been coming in actual physical possession exercising every right, title, interest over the purchased land. That during the last cadestral survey settlement operation, the suit land was recorded as Gair Mazurua forest land of the then landlord Tikait Birendra Narayan Singh, who settled the suit land in favour of Rameshwar Pandey, Triloki Pandey and Lakhan Pandey through Hukumnama executed in the year of 1947 (1354 Sal Fasli) and thereafter the settlee developed this land by clearing the jungle and brought the particular suit land under cultivation. The said settlees also paid rent to the then landlord and after the vesting of estate to the State Government, the settlees were also recognized as tenants and rent receipts were issued to them. Further case of the plaintiffs was that earlier the land was in joint possession of Rameshwar Pandey and others as a joint Hindu family property, which they got separated in the year 1978 by metes and bounds and after the separation one share holder Triloki Pandey, who got this suit land in his exclusive share, transferred the land in favour of the plaintiffs by executing a sale deed no. 11854 on 31.08.78. 11854 on 31.08.78. That the plaintiffs after purchasing the land through sale deed applied for mutation before the Anchal Adhikari, Dhanwar and through the mutation case no. 241/1978-79/57/1979-80, Jamabandi was opened in the name of the plaintiffs and rent receipts were also issued. However after the expiry of about a decade one Nandlal Mishra (Forester under Giridih Forest Division) filed a petition before the Anchal Adhikari for the cancellation of the mutation in the name of plaintiffs taking the plea that through notification no. CR-17066/TP-3417 dated 11.04.54, the entire land of plot no. 92 has been declared protected forest. The Anchal Adhikari sent the case to the Court of Land Revenue Deputy Collector, who also decided the case in favour of the plaintiffs by passing order in L.R. Case no. 64/1998-99. The plaintiffs have pleaded that during the pendency of case before L.R.D.C., one Teklal Mahto appeared as intervenor, who challenged the order of L.R.D.C. before Additional Collector, Giridih, who allowed the revision and cancelled the Jamabandi opened in the name of plaintiffs and thereafter official of defendant no. 2 and 3 started filing false and frivolous criminal forest case against the plaintiffs and those officers also called on plaintiff no. 3 and threatened him to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land. The plaintiffs had also pleaded that the aforementioned illegal and coercive methods adopted by the defendants have caused a serious cloud over the right, title, possession and interest of the plaintiffs on the suit land. Accordingly, the cause of action for the suit arose to the plaintiffs on 17.09.1999, when the forester Nandlal Mishra filed a petition before Anchal Adhikari, Dhanwar to cancel the Jamabandi of these plaintiffs without any proper authority as well as on 26.06.2000, when the learned Additional Collector declared the suit land to be in illegal possession of these plaintiffs and cancelled the Jamabandi earlier opened in their names. Hence, the plaintiffs had prayed for a decree of declaration that the plaintiffs have got perfect indefeasible rayati kaimi korkar right, title, interest, possession over the suit land and further prayed to declare the order of the Additional Collector passed in Revision Case no. 1/1999-2000 as illegal and not binding upon the plaintiffs. 5. The case of the defendants before the learned Trial Court was as under: Defendants no. 1/1999-2000 as illegal and not binding upon the plaintiffs. 5. The case of the defendants before the learned Trial Court was as under: Defendants no. 1 to 3, who are State of Jharkhand and the official of Forest Department filed a joint written statement through G.P taking preliminary objection that the suit is not maintainable in its present form. It was stated that the suit is barred by limitation, principle of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence. The suit was also stated to be grossly under valued and further stating that the value of the suit land is not less than ks. 1,00,000/-. In para wise reply to the plaint of plaintiffs, the defendants have stated that the plaintiffs have never acquired any right, title, interest and possession over the suit land on the basis of alleged sale deed dated 31.08.78 said to have been executed by Triloki Pandey, who himself had no right, title, interest over the suit land entitling him to execute the sale deed. The defendants have pleaded that the plaintiffs have admitted the fact that the suit land was recorded as Gair Majurua land with nature Jungle in the records of right after the cadestral survey and this very fact brings the said Sada Hukumnama under the shadow of doubt. The defendants further case is that the said vendor of the plaintiffs had not acquired any right, title and possession over the suit land by virtue of forged and fabricated Hukumnama and therefore, he could not convey any title to the plaintiff over the suit land by executing the alleged sale deed dated 31.08.1978. It has been pleaded that the said sale deed is illegal, void, without any right and authority and is not binding upon the state. It is the case of the defendants that since the suit land was recorded as Jungle in survey khatiyan, no part of the suit land was ever settled by the ex-landlord and after the vesting of Zamindari, the suit land vested in the state of Bihar as per the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act and the state thereafter declared the suit land as "protected forest" by the notification no. C.F. 17066/54-3417 R dated 11.08.54. C.F. 17066/54-3417 R dated 11.08.54. The defendants further pleaded that the plaintiffs might have obtained the mutation order passed by the Anchal Adhikari by suppressing the fact and practicing fraud upon the revenue authority and the same is not binding upon the defendants. However, when this fact came to the knowledge of Forest Department, it filed a case for the cancellation of Jamabandi running in the name of the plaintiffs and thereafter the Additional Collector acting within the ambit of law passed an order for cancellation of Jamabandi running in the name of plaintiffs. Lastly it was pleaded on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiffs whole case is based on forged and fabricated Sada Hukumnama allegedly executed by the ex-landlord, who was himself not having any power and authority to settle Gair Majurua forest land and even it is assumed that any Sada Hukumnama was in existence, the title on the basis of such Hukumnama seized and got extinguished from the date of the notification of declaring the land as protected forest. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs and their vendor had no occasion to possess the suit land declared protected forest at any point of time rather it is the Forest Department having exclusive possession and control over the same legally and without interruption from any corner. It was accordingly submitted that the plaintiffs are not entitied to any relief and the suit is liable to be dismissed in the interest of justice. 6. Mr. Arwind Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court have erred in dismissing the suit and affirming the appeal preferred by the appellants. He submits that the appellants were in possession of the suit property and finding was wrongly arrived by both the Courts of not having right, title and interest over the suit land. By way of referring issue no.7, he emphasises his argument for admission of this second appeal on the ground that there is no clear cut finding with regard to issue no.7 and that is the substantial question of law and in view of that, this second appeal may kindly be admitted. 7. The Court has gone through the judgment of the learned Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court. The learned Trial Court has framed 11 issues to decide the suit. 7. The Court has gone through the judgment of the learned Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court. The learned Trial Court has framed 11 issues to decide the suit. The plaintiffs examined 5 witnesses. The exhibits marked was also considered by the learned Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court. While deciding issue nos. 7 and 10 with regard to 'whether the suit land is part and parcel of notified and protected forest land?' and 'whether the plaintiffs are entitled to any other relief/reliefs and to what extent?' respectively, the learned Trial Court after discussing the stand of the plaintiffs in the suit as it was submitted before the learned Trial Court that after purchase of the land in the year 1978, the appellants applied for mutation in their favour and during the mutation proceeding, Anchal Adhikari after making of due inquiry finally ordered to open Jamabandi in the name of the plaintiffs and thereafter also rent receipts were being issued in the name of the plaintiffs but after expiry of about decade or more, one Nandlal Mishra, forester under Giridih Forest Division appeared before the Anchal Adhikari, Dhanwar with a petition to cancel the mutation of the plaintiffs claiming the suit land as part and parcel of the land of plot no.92 declared as protected forest through notification no. C.F. 17066/54-3417 R dated 11.08.1954 and after considering all these aspects, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the suit. The learned Trial Court has also considered that the Anchal Adhikari, Dhanwar sent that case to the Court of L.R.D.C. and, thereafter, L.R. Case No.64 of 1998-99 was instituted, in which, L.R.D.C. also decided the case in favour of the plaintiffs, but the Additional Collector, Giridih exercising revisional power declared the Jamabandi in the name of the plaintiffs as wrong and recommended for cancellation of the Jamabandi of these plaintiffs/appellants. The learned Trial Court further considered that when the fact of wrong opening of Zamindari in the name of plaintiffs/appellants came to the knowledge of the Forest Department, it filed a case for cancellation of the Jamabandi and, thereafter, the Additional Collector acting within the ambit of law passed an order of cancellation of Jamabandi in the name of the plaintiffs/appellants. The defendants contended before the learned Trial Court that the whole plot no.92, khata no.42, mauza Jamdiha was declared protected forest by virtue of notification no. C.F. 17066/54-3417 R dated 11.08.1954 and since then, the Forest Department is having exclusive possession and control over the same legally and without interruption from any corner. 8. The defendants have brought the notification of the State Government with notification no. C.F.17066/54 and 3417R dated 11.08.1954 (Ext.-A) and notification of the State Government done under Section 30 of Indian Forest Act with its publication by virtue of Section 31 of Indian Forest Act marked as Ext.B. Section 29 of Indian Forest Act was considered by the learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the proviso of Section 29(3) of the Indian Forest Act empowers the State Government to declare any forest land and waste land to be protected forest pending such inquiry or reports. It was also found by the learned Trial Court that the land was recorded in the record of rights as Gair Majarua jungle land and the vendors of the plaintiffs' did not get any right, title or possession by virtue of unregistered Hukumnama and, therefore, the State Government was having power and authority to declare such forest land as protected forest. The learned Trial Court has also found that the plaintiffs/appellants have not made any objection before the Forest Settlement Officer for examining their existing right on the land comprised protected forest, but there was no evidence on the record showing that the plaintiffs' vendors had ever filed their any claim before the Forest Settlement Officer for getting examined and determined their existing rights over the suit land included and declared protected forest by virtue of Government notification no. C.F. 17066/54-3417R dated 11.08.1954. In these backgrounds, the learned Trial Court has come to the conclusion with regard to alternative prayer of revision and found that the order passed by the learned Additional Collector in Revision Case No.1/1999-2000 was not illegal and it was held that it is established law that Jamabandi can be cancelled if such order has been illegally obtained in collusion with Government officials. Thus, the contention of the plaintiffs/appellants was fully considered by the learned Trial Court and finding was provided and, thereafter, the said suit was dismissed. 9. Thus, the contention of the plaintiffs/appellants was fully considered by the learned Trial Court and finding was provided and, thereafter, the said suit was dismissed. 9. The learned Appellate Court has also considered the said issues and dealt with exhibits as well as P.Ws., who have been examined. P.W.4 is the Pleader Commissioner, who was appointed by the learned Trial Court and his evidence was also considered. After discussing all the documents as well as evidences of the witnesses, the learned Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that once the State Government has declared any such land as protected forest land and the suit land was recorded in the record of rights as Gair Majarua jungle land, as such, the plaintiffs/appellants did not get any right, title or possession by virtue of Sada Hukumnama and the State Government was fully empowered to declare such forest land as protected forest land and the learned Additional Collector, Giridih in Revision Case No.1/1999-2000 passed the same to be illegal and not applicable against the appellants/plaintiffs and it was also found by the learned Appellate Court that the law is well settled that the Jamabandi can be cancelled on the valid grounds and as per Section 4(H) of Bihar Land Reforms Act. The learned Appellate Court has also found that the said Sada Hukumnama was done after 1st day of January, 1946 to defeat the provision of the said Bihar Land Reforms Act and the settlement was challenged after forty years of the alleged settlement and, thereafter, the learned Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. 10. In view of the above discussions, the Court finds that both the Courts have appreciated all the documents as well as Issue Nos. 7 and 10, as framed and those issues were decided by cogent reason. There are concurrent findings of two Courts and the facts have been rightly appreciated. The Court finds that there is no illegality in the judgment of the learned Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court as the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants have been taken care of by both the Courts. No case of interference is made out. 11. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed. 12. The Court finds that there is no illegality in the judgment of the learned Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court as the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants have been taken care of by both the Courts. No case of interference is made out. 11. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed. 12. Since this second appeal is dismissed on merit, I.A. No.5645 of 2022 which has been filed for condonation of delay, the Court comes to the conclusion that there is no merit in condoning the said delay. Accordingly, I.A. No.5645 of 2022 is also dismissed.