JUDGMENT : SANJAY PRASAD, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant-Hotel Birsa Pvt. Ltd. through its Director-Prem Rajesh Soy by challenging the judgment dated 26.02.2018 and decree dated 05.03.2018, passed by Shri Niraj Kumar Vishwakarma, then learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. I, by which the Original Suit No. 519 of 2010 has been dismissed. 2. The plaintiff-appellant has filed Original Suit No. 519 of 2010 for grant of the following relief/reliefs. (i) On adjudication a decree be passed that suit property belonging to plaintiff having chhaperbandi right and plaintiff being a lawful owner is entitled to get receipt of chhaperbandi lagan from State. (ii) Cost of suit be awarded to Plaintiff. (iii) Any other relief or reliefs which Your Honour may deem fit and proper be awarded to the plaintiff. 3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows:- (i) The R.S. Plot No. 1361, 1348, 1341 under Khata No.57 and 1336 and 1340 under Khata No. 59 and 174 respectively measuring an area 2.15 acres and the building standing thereon, situated at village- Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, Thana no. 225, District Ranchi is the subject matter of the instant suit, herein after referred to as suit property for the sake of brevity. (ii) That the Plaintiff is seized and possessed or otherwise sufficiently entitled to the land and building, having chhaperbandi right, aforesaid and also described in schedule below with absolute right, title and interest. (iii) That as a matter of fact the Director of M/S Hotel Birsa Pvt. Ltd is the member of schedule tribe. The land having chhaperbandi right has been acquired by the Company in the manner as set out in succeeding paragraphs. (iv) That a piece & parcel of land appertaining to R.S. plot nos. 1336 & 1361 measuring an area 42 decimal and 6 decimal respectively under Khata no. 57 situated at village- Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, Thana no. 225 was purchased by Mrs. Sandhya Kujur, sister of the Director of company vide a registered deed of sale being no. 8554 particulars of which have been duly entered in Book no. 1, page nos. 264 to 276 in the office of District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi. (v) That likewise a piece & parcel of land appertaining to R.S. plot no. 1361 measuring an area 48 decimal under Khata no. 57 situated at village- Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, Thana no. 8554 particulars of which have been duly entered in Book no. 1, page nos. 264 to 276 in the office of District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi. (v) That likewise a piece & parcel of land appertaining to R.S. plot no. 1361 measuring an area 48 decimal under Khata no. 57 situated at village- Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, Thana no. 225 was purchased by Mrs. Usha Kachhap, sister of the Director of company vide a registered deed of sale dated 06.10.1982 particulars of which have been duly entered in Book no. 1, Page Nos. 133 to 179 in the office of District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi. (vi) That in the same manner the Director of company namely, Prem Rajesh Soy also purchased a piece & parcel of land appertaining to R.S. plot no. 1361 measuring an area 48 decimal under Khata no. 57 situated at village- Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, Thana no. 225 vide a registered deed of sale, being no. 8555 particulars of which have been duly entered in Book no. 1, page nos. 277 to 289 in the office of District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi. (vii) That the father of Prem Rajesh Soy had also purchased a piece & parcel of land appertaining to R.S. plot nos. 1348 & 1361 measuring an area 6 decimal and 42 decimal respectively under khata no. 57 situated at village- Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, Thana no. 225 vide a registered deed of sale being no. 8556 particulars of which have been duly entered in Book no. 1, page nos. 323 to 334 in the office of District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi. (viii) That all the purchasers, named above, were having their respective lands contagious and adjacent forming one block of land. (ix) That all the purchasers had decided to commence a business of Hotel, Motel and Restaurant etc. under the name and style of M/s Adivashi Hotel and Restaurant on partnership basis. After due discussion and negotiation, the purchasers named above have reduced the terms orally agreed upon into writing in a properly drawn deed of partnership dated 06.10.1982. Pertinent to mention here that the property aforesaid was never used for agricultural purpose as it had already lost its fertility just after publication of record of right 1935. The owners therefore had decided to commence a business of hotel and Restaurant thereon. Pertinent to mention here that the property aforesaid was never used for agricultural purpose as it had already lost its fertility just after publication of record of right 1935. The owners therefore had decided to commence a business of hotel and Restaurant thereon. (x) That the purchasers have contributed their respective lands towards their capital contribution into the partnership business in accordance with the terms as set out in the deed of partnership dated 06.10.1982. (xi) That the partners of M/s Adivashi Hotel and Restaurant had subsequently added the Plaintiff (a juristic person) as one of the partners for smooth running of the partnership business and accordingly another deed of partnership on account of subsequent event was drawn up on 13.10.1983. which was duly signed and executed by the Director of company and his father and sisters including Mr. Sanika Milan Soy, who is now no more in the world. (xii) That the land held and possessed by the partnership firm was not adequate and sufficient for the purpose of construction of building for hotel and restaurant, hence, they jointly approached Dr. Bahalen Bodra, daughter of Late John Bodra to join them into the partnership business and contribute her piece of land of R.S. Plot No. 1340 and 1341 measuring an area 20 decimals and 03 decimals respectively which is adjacent to the plots of the partnership firm. (xiii) That the said Dr. Bahalen Bodra voluntarily agreed to become partner of M/s Adivashi Hotel and Restaurant and she contributed the land belonging to her as her contribution towards her capital contribution and on account of subsequent development another deed of partnership was duly executed between her and the remaining partners of M/s Adivashi Hotel and Restaurant on 05.07.1984. (xiv) That on 04.09.1984 the said partnership firm, namely, M/s Adivashi Hotel and Restaurant was dissolved in terms of execution of a deed of dissolution of partnership duly signed by all of them and according to the terms and conditions of the deed of dissolution of partnership the Plaintiff took over all the assets and liabilities of the said firm including all its moveable and immoveable properties and paid off the share of each and every partner of M/s Adivashi Hotel and Restaurant. (xv) That relevant to place on record that the Director of company also happened to be one of the partners of M/s Adivashi Hotel and Restaurant and after dissolution of the partnership all assets and liabilities of the firm were taken over by Plaintiff and accordingly the company became owner of the lands mentioned herein above and started enjoying their rights as lawful owner of the same. The company (Plaintiff) is a juristic person in the eye of law, who got their name mutated in the office of Town Anchal Ranchi vide Mutation Case No. 99R27/87-88 vide order dated 10.06.1987. The company also got their name entered in the office of Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi, and started paying rent/taxes to the State. (xvi) That at the time of the dissolution of the firm, the Plaintiff took over all the assets and liabilities of the firm and also became custodian of title deeds of the property aforesaid and all other relevant documents relating to the business affairs of the partnership firm. (xvii) That M/S Hotel Birsa Pvt. Ltd. through its Director became absolute owner of the land and building aforesaid on the date of dissolution of partnership firm. The then owner of the respective piece of land as mentioned hereinabove became the Benamidar and upon request of the company it was thought expedient by all of them to relinquish their rights from the property aforesaid in accordance with the provision of law. (xviii) That all the purchasers whose names have been mentioned above, have separately executed deed of relinquishment/release in favour of M/S Hotel Birsa Pvt. Ltd., (Plaintiff) A Company duly incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Birsa Chowk, Khunti Road, P.O. Hinoo, District- Ranchi. Altogether 5 deeds of relinquishment being deed nos. 7930 to 7934 were executed on 18.09.1987 which was duly registered in the office of District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi. The Plaintiff on the basis of above got his name entered in Register II. The defendant no.2 after due verification allowed mutation in the name of plaintiff and since then rent is being paid by the plaintiff to the State. 7930 to 7934 were executed on 18.09.1987 which was duly registered in the office of District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi. The Plaintiff on the basis of above got his name entered in Register II. The defendant no.2 after due verification allowed mutation in the name of plaintiff and since then rent is being paid by the plaintiff to the State. (xix) That it is manifest that M/S Hotel Birsa Pvt. Ltd., A Company duly incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Birsa Chowk, Khunti Road, P.O. Hinoo, District- Ranchi is the lawful owner of the property aforesaid and the same is being possessed by the company under the supervision and care of the petitioner (Member of schedule tribe) with absolute right, title and interest. The suit property has not been used for agriculture purpose since last several decades and nature of land has been converted into chhaperbandi by way of its use. (xx) That the sisters and father of Prem Rajesh Soy (Director of company) also happened to be the Directors of M/S Hotel Birsa Pvt. Ltd. The sisters of the Director of company have tendered their resignation on 20.04.1995 which was accepted by the Company and accordingly the Registrar of Companies was informed in prescribed Form No.32 dated 15.05.1995. (xxi) That the business of the company is being run under guidance and supervision of Director of company and he is a member of- schedule tribe and all efforts have been made by him to commence a business of Hotel and Restaurant. The land, on which the building has been constructed, has not been used for agriculture purpose since last several decades and same is out of the ambit of raiyati holding as defined under section 6 of the CNT Act. Nature of land became chhaperbandi and plaintiff is entitled to pay chhaperbandi lagan/rent to the State. (xxii) That in view of above the plaintiff has requested the Defendant No. 2 to accept chhaperbandi lagan/rent for the suit property but the Defendant No.2 has refused to issue rent receipt by showing nature of land as chhaperbandi. (xxiii) That revisional survey was made and record of right was finally published in the year 1935 and thereafter no survey in the Hinoo Mauja has been made. (xxiii) That revisional survey was made and record of right was finally published in the year 1935 and thereafter no survey in the Hinoo Mauja has been made. The assumption of Defendant No.2 based on record of right has got no legal sanctity for ascertaining nature of land as raiyati one in view of the fact that various changes have been made or developments have taken place in mauza Hinoo. There was no multistoried building in the said vicinity when last survey was made but now the scenario has completely changed. The definition of Raiyat as defined under section 6 of CNT Act makes it clear that Raiyat means primarily a person who has acquired the land for the purpose of cultivation. The land aforesaid is not being used for agricultural purpose, therefore, the status and character of the land would always be deemed to be chhaperbandi. (xxiv) That the Plaintiff being aggrieved with the act of Defendant No. 2 has sent a notice under section 80 of The Code of Civil Procedure to the Defendant No.1 and copy of same was also sent to Defendant No.2. The Plaintiff by sending the said notice to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi sought for a relief that Defendant No.2 be directed to realize chhaperbandi rent/lagan of the suit property in view of fact that nature of land has been converted into chhaperbandi by way of its use, hence the present suit has been filed. 4. The schedule of the land has been mentioned in the plaint, which is as follows:- SCHEDULE All that piece & parcel of land and building standing over R.S. Plot No.s 1361, 1348, 1341 under Khata No. 57, Plot No. 1336 and 1340 under Khata No.59 and 174 respectively an area 2.15 acres, situated at village-Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, Thana No. 225, District-Ranchi. 5. However, the Defendants had not filed the Written Statement as the Defendants were debarred from filing the Written Statement vide order dated 12.09.2011 by the learned Court below by observing that Defendants have received the Notice on 10.06.2011 but they did not file Written Statement within statutory period of limitation. 6. Thereafter, the plaintiff had filed amendment petition on 21.05.2012 for amending the plaint, which was allowed by the learned Court below vide order dated 06.07.2012/07.07.2012 and the plaintiffs prayed to incorporate the amendment. 7. 6. Thereafter, the plaintiff had filed amendment petition on 21.05.2012 for amending the plaint, which was allowed by the learned Court below vide order dated 06.07.2012/07.07.2012 and the plaintiffs prayed to incorporate the amendment. 7. It is evident from Para 8 of the impugned judgment that as there was no Written Statement filed on behalf of the Defendants and hence, no proper issue was framed by the learned Court below, however, the learned Court below observed that it is the duty of the Court to see whether the suit is maintainable in the eye of law and whether the plaintiff has got valid cause of action for the suit or not and the above questions were dealt with and decided at Para 9 and Para 10 of the impugned judgment. 8. The Plaintiff-Appellant, in support of his case, got examined Six (06) witnesses, who are as follows:- (i) P.W.1 is Mahendra Kumar Singh (ii) P.W.2 is Jultan Emmanuel Demta (iii) P.W.3 is Deepak Choubey (iv) P.W.4 is Mannu Jautga (v) P.W.5 is Prem Rajesh Soy, i.e. the plaintiff (vi) P.W.6 is Asif Ziya 9. The plaintiff-appellant, in support of his case, got marked certain documents, which are as follows:- (i) Exhibit 1 is the certified copy of correction slip (ii) Exhibit-2 is the certified copy of order of Mutation Case no.99R27/87-88 (iii) Exhibit-3 is the Government rent receipt (iv) Exhibit-4 is the Legal notice under section 80 of C.P.C. (v) Exhibit 5 to 5/a are two postal receipts (vi) Exhibit-6 is Sale deed no.8554 dated 06.10.1982 (vii) Exhibit 7 is the Sale deed no.8557 dated 04.07.1982 (viii) Exhibit-8 is the Sale deed no.8457 dated 06.10.1982 (ix) Exhibit-9 is the Deed of partnership dated 06.10.1982 (x) Exhibit-10 is the Deed of partnership dated 05.07.1984 (xi) Exhibit-11 is certified copy of map of case no.593/07 of RRDA, Ranchi (xii) Exhibit-12 is the No dues certificate dated 22.03.2005 (xiii) Exhibit-13 is the Letter of RRDA dated 22.03.2005 (xiv) Exhibit-14 is the Letter no.1144 dated 23.06.2010 issued by the Circle Officer. 10. Although, the Defendants had not filed any Written Statement, however, the Court had allowed them to produce oral and documentary evidence. 11. Defendants-Respondents examined one witness, namely Md. Firoj Khan as D.W.1 12. The Defendants-Respondents, in support of their case, got marked one document as Exhibit-A, which is a certified copy of Register-II, Volume IX, Page No. 188 of Village Hinoo. 13. 11. Defendants-Respondents examined one witness, namely Md. Firoj Khan as D.W.1 12. The Defendants-Respondents, in support of their case, got marked one document as Exhibit-A, which is a certified copy of Register-II, Volume IX, Page No. 188 of Village Hinoo. 13. Thereafter, the learned Court below recorded its finding by deciding the Issue No.II and also by deciding repeated Issue No. II (It appears that first Issue No. II should be Issue No.I, whereas repeated Issue No.II should be Issue No.II as framed by the learned Court below.) 14. Thereafter, the learned Court below has dismissed the suit by holding that there is no cause of action for filing the suit and learned Court below has further held that the suit is not maintainable in the Civil Court because there was no lis as the Defendants have never demanded rent but the plaintiff forcibly wants to give it and the learned Court below has further held that the suit is barred under Section 258 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. 15. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff-Appellant and learned counsel appearing on behalf of State-Respondents. 16. learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the learned Court below has committed grave illegality by dismissing the suit on the ground of no cause of action on behalf of the plaintiff for filing the suit. It is further submitted that the learned Court below has wrongly observed that the suit is a premature suit and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. It is further submitted that the learned Court below has committed grave illegality by observing that the suit is barred under Section 258 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (Hereinafter to be referred to as C.N.T. Act). It is submitted that the plaintiff is the Director of Hotel Birsa Private Limited, which is well known in Ranchi and is situated at the heart of town in a commercial place since last several decades and which is not situated in any agricultural land. It is submitted that the plaintiff is the Director of Hotel Birsa Private Limited, which is well known in Ranchi and is situated at the heart of town in a commercial place since last several decades and which is not situated in any agricultural land. It is submitted that plaintiff had examined Six (06) witnesses in support of his case including himself as P.W.5 and all the witnesses have fully supported the case of the plaintiff and it clearly stated that the plaintiff is running the hotel in the name of Hotel Birsa Private Limited since last several years and which has not been denied by the respondents also. The plaintiff -appellant, in support of his case, got proved several documents marked as Ext. 1 to Ext.14. It is submitted that even the Map of Hotel has been passed by the R.R.D.A., which has been marked as Ext.11. Even R.R.D.A. has issued no dues certificate vide letter dated 22.03.2005, which is marked as Ext.12. Further another letter dated 22.03.2005 has also been issued by the R.R.D.A. marked as Ext. 13, whereas Circle Officer, vide Letter dated 23.06.2010 has committed illegality by rejecting the claim of the plaintiff-appellant. It is submitted that the plaintiff had approached the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for a declaration that his property, which was originally recorded as a rayati land has now lost its nature as an agricultural land and has become chapparbandi by nature. It is submitted that Section 9 of C.P.C. provides that Civil Court shall try Civil Suits unless barred. Therefore, it is evident that since there is no bar for instituting a suit for declaration of nature of land under the CNT Act, the Civil Court is competent to entertain any suit claiming any declaration which is legally sustainable. It is submitted that merely not demanding of chapparbandi rent by the State shall not render a suit as not maintainable and the plaintiff is always entitled to get a positive declaration by a civil court. It is submitted that merely not demanding of chapparbandi rent by the State shall not render a suit as not maintainable and the plaintiff is always entitled to get a positive declaration by a civil court. It is submitted that the learned Court below has wrongly observed that Exhibit-14, i.e. letter No. 1144 dated 23.06.2010, issued by the Circle Officer by which it was expressed that the Circle Officer was not competent to declare the nature of land, was an appealable order and the plaintiff could have preferred an appeal before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector or Sub-Divisional Officer or the Deputy Commissioner or the Commissioner of Land and Revenue. It is submitted that the learned court below has misinterpreted the document marked as Exhibit-14, which was a reply to an application under the RTI Act and secondly the learned Court below did not specify the provision of law under which and the authority before whom the appeal could have been preferred. Thus, the finding in Paragraph No. 9 of the impugned judgment to that extent is completely vague and baseless. It is submitted that even further the learned court below has wrongly held that power to declare a land as chapparbandi vests with the Khas Mahal authority under section 2(9) of the KHAS MAHAL MANUAL . It is submitted that the suit property is a private property and thus not covered under the KHAS MAHAL MANUAL and secondly, there is no provision like section 2(9) in the KHAS MAHAL MANUAL and as such the finding to that effect is wholly absurd. It is submitted that the State Government has neither brought on record any document nor has emphasized any particular provision of law under which such a declaration can be made. It is submitted that it has been time and again observed by the Jharkhand High Court that change of nature of land by its usage is permissible and once the nature of a raiyati land is lost, no provision concerning a raiyati land shall apply to it. It is submitted that the learned court below was competent enough to make a declaration as sought for by the plaintiff and moreover, making such declaration would not cause any harm to either of the parties or in general as well. 17. It is submitted that the learned court below was competent enough to make a declaration as sought for by the plaintiff and moreover, making such declaration would not cause any harm to either of the parties or in general as well. 17. Learned Counsel for the appellant, in support of his contention has relied upon the judgments reported in the following cases: (i) Murlidhar Gupta and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand , (1988) 36 BLJR 152 (ii) Kamal Khess and Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. , (2011) 4 AIR Jhar R 138 It is submitted that having lost its raiyati nature, the suit is fit to be declared as a non-agricultural/chapparbandi land and hence, the appeal may be allowed and the suit may be decreed. 18. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that impugned judgment dated 26.02.2018, in Original Suit No. 519 of 2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.I, Ranchi is proper and no interference is required from this Court. It is submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was not maintainable before the Civil Court, Ranchi and as such the learned Court below has rightly dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant. It is submitted that the learned Court below has rightly held that the permission granted from R.R.D.A. does not change the nature of the land because R.R.D.A. is not a State and even in the matter of grant of chapparbandi rent, the State has to realize it and not by the R.R.D.A. It is submitted that there is no incident of surrender of land by any Jamindar. It is submitted that the plaintiff is trying to circumvent the provisions of C.N.T. Act and has created sale deeds and partnership deed for the purpose of deviating the case from the main issues. It is further submitted that there is no provision in C.N.T. Act for conversion of nature of land as chapparbandi land and thus, the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was not maintainable. 19. It is further submitted that the Section 85 of the C.N.T. Act authorizes the Revenue Officer for settlement of rent after the survey is conducted. It is submitted that the State cannot change the nature of land on its own or suo-motu. 20. 19. It is further submitted that the Section 85 of the C.N.T. Act authorizes the Revenue Officer for settlement of rent after the survey is conducted. It is submitted that the State cannot change the nature of land on its own or suo-motu. 20. It is further submitted that the Civil Court has no power to change the nature of land on the basis of original title suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant. It is submitted that similar question arose before the Patna High Court with regard to change in nature of Agricultural land and the Hon’ble Patna High Court has held in the case of Din Dayal Ram Vs. Ramzan Mistri , AIR 1946 Pat 466 that nature of land cannot be changed. It is submitted that even the record from the Department reveals that land of Khata No. 57, 59 and 174 of RS Khatiyan is recorded in the name of Junus Munda and Hanku Munda, both sons of Chamu Munda and the land has been mutated in the name of Birsa Hotel Private Limited and Ext. 2 is the copy of Register-II with regard to the land in question. It is further submitted that the Circle Officer has no right for declaration of chapparbandi rent. It is submitted that the plaintiff-appellant has filed the suit only to deviate from the provisions of C.N.T. Act and only to escape from the stringent provisions of C.N.T. Act by approaching a different path. It is submitted that the evidence of P.W.5, i.e. the Plaintiff-Appellant-Prem Rajesh Soy, is nothing but to mislead the learned Court below by claiming that the land in question is chapparbandi. It is submitted that evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4, namely Mahendra Kumar Singh, Jultan Emmanuel Demta, Deepak Choubey and Mannu Jautga, are not reliable, hence this First Appeal may be dismissed. 21. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the submission of both the sides. 22. It transpires that the plaintiff-appellant had filed the Original Suit No. 519 of 2010 for passing a decree that the suit property belonging to the plaintiff is having chapparbandi right and the plaintiff-appellant being a lawful owner is entitled to get the rent receipt of chapparbandi lagan from the State and the cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff. 23. 23. From the pleadings made in the plaint, it would appear that by virtue of sale deeds dated 06.10.1982, 04.07.1982 and 06.10.1982, marked as Ext. 6, Ext.7 and Ext.8 respectively and also by virtue of Ext.9 and Ext.10, which are deeds of partnership dated 06.10.1982 and 05.07.1984 respectively, the plaintiff is running M/s Hotel Birsa Private Limited since the year 1984 on his own as the earlier Directors, namely Sandhya Kujur, Usha Kachhap and one Dr. Bahalene Bodra has relinquished their respective shares in favour of the Plaintiff-Appellant. It is further evident that even the map of the Hotel has been passed by Ranchi Rural Development Authority (i.e. R.R.D.A.), which is marked as Ext.11. The R.R.D.A. has even issued No-dues certificate vide letter dated 22.03.2005, marked as Ext.12. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiff is running M/s Birsa Hotel Pvt. Limited as the Proprietor-cum-Director of the said suit property. 24. The plaintiff had examined six witnesses in support of his case and has got proved various documents as Exhibits, which have been mentioned in Paragraph 8 and 9 of this judgment. 25. It further reveals that although the defendant-respondent (i.e. the State) had not filed any document, but they had produced and got examined one witness, namely Md. Firoz Khan as D.W.1 and they also got proved the certified copy of Register-II, Volume-IX, Page 188 of Village Hinoo as Ext. A. 26. It reveals from the judgment that the learned Court below has observed that no written statement was filed on behalf of the State-Defendant- Respondent and hence, no proper issue could be framed, however, it is the duty of the Court to see whether the suit is maintainable in the eye of law and whether the plaintiffs had got any valid cause of action for the suit or not ? 27. The learned Court below has decided as to whether the suit is maintainable in the eye of law as Issue No.I and has decided the Issue No.II in the form as to whether the Plaintiffs have got any valid cause of action for the suit or not? 28. 27. The learned Court below has decided as to whether the suit is maintainable in the eye of law as Issue No.I and has decided the Issue No.II in the form as to whether the Plaintiffs have got any valid cause of action for the suit or not? 28. The learned Court below has discussed the evidence of the Plaintiffs’ witnesses in brief examined as P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6, namely Mahendra Kumar Singh, Jultan Emmanuel Demta, Deepak Choubey, Mannu Jautga, Prem Rajesh Soy, Asif Ziya respectively and has held that there is no iota of evidence to show that the land of the Plaintiff-Appellant has become chapparbandi and even though the Plaintiff is running hotel with the permission of R.R.D.A. for a long period, but that does not change the nature of the land as the State has no where given consent. 29. The learned Court below further held that it is for the Executive Authority to decide the change of nature of the suit land. However, the plaintiff has filed the suit mainly on the ground that the Circle Officer has rejected his claim by observing that nature of the land can be decided by the competent Civil Court, but passing of an order by the Circle Officer does not give a cause of action to file the suit because the Circle Officer has no authority to direct the Civil Court to decide a particular question of Chapparbandi land with regard to any suit plot. 30. From perusal of evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4, namely Mahendra Kumar Singh, Deepak Choubey and Mannu Jautga, it would appear that they have supported the case of the plaintiff-appellant by stating that the land in question as described in the Schedule of the plaint is situated near Ranchi Over Bridge. A Hotel has been constructed and the plaintiff- appellant is the owner, running the said hotel. They have also described that the said suit land was purchased by the registered deed dated 06.10.1982 by Usha Kachhap (sister of Director of the Hotel) from Biraj Munda and others on 04.07.1982 and thereafter, the said land was purchased by the plaintiff Rajesh Soy by another registered sale deed dated 06.10.1982 from Biraj Munda and others and all the possessors have jointly started the business in the name of M/s Adivashi Hotel and Restaurant. Thereafter both the purchasers have made a partnership agreement dated 06.10.1982. They have stated that from the date of purchase the said land was neither an agricultural land nor any agricultural activity was done on the said piece of land. The Adivashi Hotel was being run by the plaintiff and his sisters in jointness. Thereafter, they started running the business in the name of Hotel Birsa Private Ltd. However, later on sisters of the plaintiff- appellant relinquished their right in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and since then the plaintiff is running the hotel as its Director. They had not seen any agricultural work over this disputed land and even in the master plan, this land is not recorded for the purpose of agriculture. Hence, the Plaintiff has rightly requested from the respondent State to furnish him chapparbandi lagan. 31. So far as evidence of P.W.2, namely Jultan Emmanuel Demta, is concerned, he has also supported the case of the plaintiff-appellant and stated the same facts as stated by P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4, namely Mahendra Kumar Singh, Deepak Choubey and Mannu Jautga. However, he has further proved the documents marked as Ext. 1 and Ext.2, which are the order of mutation passed on 21.05.1987 and 10.05.1987 respectively. He further proved the rent receipt as Ext. 3. He has further proved the Notice sent under Section 80 C.P.C., marked as Ext.4. He has further proved the receipt of the registered Notice, marked as Ext.5. Thus, from the perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 and P.W.6, namely Mahendra Kumar Singh, Jultan Emmanuel Demta, Deepak Choubey, Mannu Jautga, Asif Ziya respectively, it is evident that even at the time of execution of the sale deed dated 06.10.1982, i.e. Ext.6 and its mutation order and rent receipt, as Ext.2 and Ext. 3 respectively, the plaintiff and his witnesses were aware of the fact that the suit land was not registered for giving chapparbandi rent although initially they were running Adivashi Hotel and Restaurant and which was later on renamed as M/s Hotel Birsa Bihar Pvt. Ltd. and there was no whisper on the side of the plaintiff to raise the issue of chapparbandi rent at that time. 32. 32. So far as evidence of plaintiff-appellant, i.e. P.W.5 is concerned, it reveals that he has proved the sale deeds dated 06.10.1982, 04.07.1982 and 06.10.1982, executed by Biraj Munda and others in favour of Sandhya Kujur and Usha Kachhap, i.e. sisters of the plaintiff and in the name of the plaintiff Prem Rajesh Soy over the suit properties, i.e. Ext. 6, Ext. 7 and Ext. 8. He also stated that he prepared deed of partnership in association with his sisters on 06.10.1982 and further on 05.07.1984, which has been marked as Ext. 9 and Ext.10 respectively and they started running the hotel in the name of Adivasi Hotel and Restaurant in jointness. Later on, he got the mutation of the disputed land in the name of M/s Birsa Hotel Private Limited and is paying rent to Ranchi Anchal. He has proved the map of the hotel issued by the R.R.D.A. marked as Ext.11. He also stated that after returning the entire debt amount he has been issued no dues certificate from Bihar State Credit & Investigation Corporation Ltd. on 05.09.2005, which is marked as Ext. 12 showing no liability or debt upon the Hotel. He further proved the Letter dated 22.03.2005, issued by R.R.D.A., marked as Ext. 13. 33. He further stated that he had applied before the Anchal Adhikari Town for issuance of chapparbandi Lagan/Rent, but the Anchal Adhikari rejected his claim vide order dated 23.06.2010 marked as Ext.14. Thereafter, he sent legal notice to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and the Anchal Adhikari, Ranchi Town, but no reply was received. 34. During cross-examination he admitted to running the hotel business for the last 35 years. He claimed to have obtained permission for himself and his sisters also claimed permission and issued permission under Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act for transferring the land. He admitted to have obtained map from the R.R.D.A. before constructing the hotel. He has also informed about the relinquishment of right of his sisters before the Registrar of Company. He further stated that he had filed the civil suit only after rejection of his application by the Circle Officer. 35. He admitted to have obtained map from the R.R.D.A. before constructing the hotel. He has also informed about the relinquishment of right of his sisters before the Registrar of Company. He further stated that he had filed the civil suit only after rejection of his application by the Circle Officer. 35. From scrutinizing the evidence of P.W. 5, i.e. Plaintiff-appellant, it is evident that he was well aware of the fact at the time of execution of the sale deed dated 06.10.1982 in his name and in the name of his sisters, namely Usha Kachhap and Sandhya Kachhap, no Chapparbandi rent was fixed. 36. It transpires that Ext.6, Ext.7 and Ext.8 are the Sale Deeds dated 06.10.1982, 04.07.1982, 06.10.1982 respectively, from perusal of which it reveals that the land in question has been described as the agricultural land and Parti-Tanr land. It also reveals that although the deeds of partnership dated 06.10.1982 and 05.07.1984 were marked as Ext. 9 and Ext.10 respectively, however, during cross-examination, the Plaintiff-Appellant has stated that the earlier Directors, namely Sandhya Kujur, Usha Kachhap and one Dr. Bahalen Bodra, daughter of Late John Bodra had relinquished their share in the suit property in the year 1994 in favour of the Plaintiff-Appellant. 37. It further appears that the Plaintiff- Appellant has asserted in the plaint that altogether Five deeds of relinquishment being deed no.s 7930 to 7934 were executed on 18.09.1987, which were duly registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Ranchi, however, the said documents have not been brought on record by the plaintiff. 38. It further reveals from the impugned judgment that the Circle Officer, Ranchi, vide order dated 23.06.2010 has rejected the claim of the plaintiff-appellant for issuance of receipt of chapparbandi rent and even at the time of passing of map by R.R.D.A. the nature of land was not shown as chapparbandi land, however, he has filed the suit on the observation of the Circle Officer to move before the competent Civil Court. 39. The word chapparbandi is explained in the Tylor’s report of 1935 as follows:- “95.Chapparbandi rents - Although house and homestead plots are not included in the rent of agricultural holdings, there are cases where a chapparbandi rent or house tax has been separately assessed on them. These cases fall into two classes:- (a) Where the house and homestead plots are connected with agriculture. These cases fall into two classes:- (a) Where the house and homestead plots are connected with agriculture. In these cases they may form part of an agricultural holding, or more usually are occupied by a tenant who previously had an agricultural holding but who has subsequently lost it; or else they are occupied by an agricultural labourer who holds them for agricultural purposes. In such cases if an agricultural holding still existed the plots and the chapparbandi payable for them were entered in the same Khata with it; if there was no agricultural holding the plots and the chapparbandi rent were entered in separate Kaemi, dakhalkar, or gairdakhalkar khatas according to the status of the tenant. The restrictions on transfer imposed by section 46 apply to such plots as they are agricultural lands. (b) Where the house and homestead plots are held by an agricultural tenant but not as part of his agricultural holding, or where they are occupied for non-agricultural purposes. In such cases the plots and the chapparbandi rent paid for them were entered in separate makan-bari status khatians in the tenant’s name if there was a bari or, if not in the landlord’s gairmazrua Khatians with the note of the name of the tenant in possession. The restriction of section 46, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, on transfer do not apply to these plots as they are not rayati-holdings. A great many house and homestead plots of this kind are found in and near the bigger towns. Many raiyats attempted to evade the restrictions of Section 46 , Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, by paying salami to the landlords to convert portions of their raiyati holdings into chapparbandi holdings of this type.” 40. It has been held in the case of Murlidhar Gupta and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand , (1988) 36 BLJR 152, at Para 10 as follows :- “ Para 10: - ………………….It might have been acquired once upon a time for cultivation but if it is being used consistently for residence unconnected with agricultural operation, the losing of the character of the land is permissible in law, particularly when there is no provision and no procedure for obtaining an order from authorities that the land has lost its original character-Dindayal Ram v. Ramzan Mistri A.I.R. 1946 Pat 466…………………..” 41. It has been held in the case of Kamal Khess and Anr. Vs. It has been held in the case of Kamal Khess and Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. (2011) 4 AIR Jhar R 138 at Para 6 as follows:- “ Para 6:- Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I perused the impugned order passed by the Divisional Commissioner. The order is elaborate and runs in 33 pages. Learned Commissioner has thoroughly discussed every aspect of the case. He has dealt with the facts, evidences and relevant provisions of law in detail and has recorded its conclusion in Para 11, which is reproduced herein below:- “ 11. It is an admitted fact that the lands in question are recorded in the name of ancestors of the petitioners and the description of the land in column 6 has been mentioned as Makan Kuchcha Khaparposh Main Angan Woh Hata in the Municipal Survey records of right. Therefore, it is clear that there was Kuchcha house with Courtyard surrounded by boundary wall. The O.P. has filed the certified copy of assessment list of Ranchi. Municipality for the year 1930-31, certified copy of the assessment list of Ranchi Municipality for the year 1945-46 and certified copy of the assessment list of the Ranchi Municipality for the year 1960-61. From the perusal of these assessment lists, it is clear that the description of the holding has been shown as Kachcha Makan with compound in the assessment list of 1930-31 and 1945-46 while the assessment list of 1960-61, the description of the holding has been mentioned as K.T. Long barrack 10 rooms and in all the three cases, the rent has been assessed as Chhaparbandi rent. The Sale deed of the year 1963 mentioned this land as Chhaparbandi. Similarly, sale deed dated 9-8-1972, the Kachcha house with tiled roof has been mentioned. In the mutation case No. 647 of 1962-63, the lands in question have been mentioned as Chhaparbandi in the petition filed by Sushana Khess before the learned D.C.L.R. Ranchi. In case No. 40 of 1973, the Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi has mentioned in his report that the lands in question are Chhaparbandi. In view of these documents, it is clearly established that the lands in question have never been used for agricultural purposes at least since 1929. In case No. 40 of 1973, the Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi has mentioned in his report that the lands in question are Chhaparbandi. In view of these documents, it is clearly established that the lands in question have never been used for agricultural purposes at least since 1929. It has been held by the Hon ble High Court that there is no provision and procedure for changing the character of the land in the C.N.T. Act and character of the land could be lost by its user which is permissible under law. It has also been held by the Hon'ble High Court in a number of decisions that if the land is Chhaparbandi no proceeding u/S. 71A of the C.N.T. Act can be initiated for the restoration of that land. The learned advocate on behalf of the O.P. has relied upon the rulings on this point and these rulings have been mentioned earlier in this oriters has boon also held by the Hon'ble High Court in the ruling reported in AIR 1935 Pa 105 that if the land is surrounded by the compound wall and there is a shop inside i the provisions of the CNT. Act are not applicable. This decision has also been retied upon by the Hon'ble High Court in the present case reported in 1987 BLT page 305 the present case, the lands in question are recorded as Kachcha Makan Khaparpoon Nai Angan Woh Hata which clearly means that there is a house with Courtyard surrounded by compound wall. Thus, according to the ruling reported in AIR 1935 Pat 105 the provisions of the CN.T. Apt are not applicable in this case. Apart from the documents produced by the O.P., the teamed lower Courts have also examined the witnesses who have confirmed that the lands in question Have never been used for the agricultural purposes since at least about 70 years. The Hon'ble High Court while remanding the case has specially directed to record the finding whether the lands in question are agricultural lands or non-agricultural lands. It is very much clear from the decision of the Hon'ble High Court that if the lands in question are non- agricultural in nature, the provisions of Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act will not be applicable. It is very much clear from the decision of the Hon'ble High Court that if the lands in question are non- agricultural in nature, the provisions of Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act will not be applicable. The learned advocate on behalf of the petitioners has tried to distinguish between Chhawarbandi land, homestead land and agricultural as well as non agricultural lands. the has taken shelter of Taylor's Report and on the basis of the Taylor's report, he has mentioned that Chhaparbandi is not a character of land, but it is kind of rent. It may be mentioned that the word Chhaparbandi has not been defined in the CN.T. Act, but is common parlance the word Chhaparbandi is used for fands covered with house and homestead and Chhaparbandi lands are treated similar lands. In the present case, the lands in question are recorded as Kachcha Makan Khaparposh with Courtyard and compound wall. These are certainly Chhaparbandi lands. There may be a doubt whether non agricultural lands can be treated as Chhaparbandi lands but in this case no suen doubt arises in view of series of documents produced by the O.P. It can clearly be said that all non agricultural lands may not be Chhaparbandi but all Chhaparbandi lands are certainly non agricultural lands. Therefore the learned lower Courts have rightly held that the lands in question in the present case are Chhaparbandi lands and in view of catena of decisions of our Hon'ble High Court referred to above, the provisions of Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act will not be applicable. There has been no denial from the petitioners about the execution of various registered sale deeds and therefore there is no need to go into this aspect. The ruling mentioned by the learned advocate on behalf of the petitioners as reported in 1992 Supp (2) SCC 77: AIR 1992 SC 195 is not applicable in this case. In the aforesaid ruling, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with the term transfer used in Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act and it has got no application in the present case.” 42. It is pertinent to mention here that the judgment passed in the case of Kamal Khess and Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. In the aforesaid ruling, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with the term transfer used in Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act and it has got no application in the present case.” 42. It is pertinent to mention here that the judgment passed in the case of Kamal Khess and Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. (2011) 4 AIR Jhar R 138 is not applicable in this case because in the above case the nature of land was recorded as chapparbandi land at the time of execution of the sale deed, at the time of assessment list of Ranchi Municipality in the year 1930-31 and in the year 1945-46 and also in the year 1960-61 respectively. Even in the said Sale deed dated 09.08.1972 the land in question was mentioned as Chapparbandi, however, in the present case the nature of land was recorded as Parti Tanr. Apart from this, the said case is related to restoration of possession in respect of Chapparbandi land in question under the provisions of Section 71-A of the C.N.T. Act, which is not the case here. Thus, the above judgment is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. 43. So far as judgment passed in the case of Murlidhar Gupta and Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand , (1988) 36 BLJR 152 is concerned, the same is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case in view of the fact that the above case relates to restoration of possession under Section 71 – A of the C.N.T. Act and even the land in question has been recorded as Chapparbandi land, which is not the case of the plaintiff. Thus, this case is also not applicable on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case. 44. The provisions of C.N.T. Act prescribed certain acts to be adopted by the Revenue authorities. The plaintiff claimed to have obtained the permission of the D.C., Ranchi under Section 46 of the Act before execution of the sale deed in the name of Plaintiff- appellant and his sisters Usha and Sandhya and the nature of land as it reveals from the sale deeds marked as Ext. 6, Ext.7 and Ext. The plaintiff claimed to have obtained the permission of the D.C., Ranchi under Section 46 of the Act before execution of the sale deed in the name of Plaintiff- appellant and his sisters Usha and Sandhya and the nature of land as it reveals from the sale deeds marked as Ext. 6, Ext.7 and Ext. 8 is mentioned as Parti Tanr/Raiyati land having Raiyati rights and not chapparbandi land and the suit property were the ancestral lands of the vendors namely Biraj Munda, Daud Munda, Hanuk Munda, Junus Munda, Bishram Munda, Martin Munda, Hardugan Munda, Marshal Munda and Mahanand Munda respectively. 45. In view of the discussion of evidence of parties, both oral and documentary evidence, this Court finds that the learned Court below has committed no illegality, while passing the impugned order dated 26.02.2018 by observing that the plaintiff has got no valid cause of action for filing the suit. 46. Thus, from perusal of the sale deeds dated 06.10.1982, 04.07.1982 and 06.10.1982, marked as Ext. 6, Ext.7 and Ext.8 respectively, it would appear that the suit property has been described in the sale deed as Parti Tanr having Raiyati rights and the nature of the land has not been shown as chapparbandi. Even at the time of passing of the map of the Hotel dated 04.12.2008, it would appear that the nature of the land has not been described. 47. The plaintiff and his witnesses have failed to prove as to whether apart from the hotel premises of the plaintiff in question any other area in the near vicinity or other premises has been declared as chapparbandi land or chappparbandi rent are being issued or not as there must be some other such lands and other such properties situated near the Hotel of the plaintiff, but no such evidence has been brought on record. 48. It is well settled that it is the right of the State Government/Revenue Authority to change the nature of land and only the State has to take policy decision to change the nature of land or for issuance of Chapparbandi rent of the premises of the plaintiff-appellant in question. 49. 48. It is well settled that it is the right of the State Government/Revenue Authority to change the nature of land and only the State has to take policy decision to change the nature of land or for issuance of Chapparbandi rent of the premises of the plaintiff-appellant in question. 49. Thus, the observation of the Circle Officer in the order dated 23.06.2010 to the plaintiff- appellant to move before the Civil Court for adjudicating that the whether plaintiff is having chapparbandi right over this suit property and entitled to get rent receipt of Chapparbandi lagan from the State is devoid of merit. 50. The question of the Chhapparbandi rent has to be interpreted by the Revenue authorities and competent authorities of the State Government, but the Civil Courts cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities by declaring the nature of land as chapparbandi land by issuing chapparbandi receipts in absence of any valid document. 51. It has been held by the Hon’ble Patna High Court that nature of land cannot be changed in the case of Din Dayal Ram Vs. Ramzan Mistri , AIR 1946 Pat 466 , at Paras 3, 4, 5 and 6 as follows:- “ Para 3:- The Courts below, however, have found that plot No. 771 had long ago lost its nature of raiyati character and not only had the land completely lost its original nature of agricultural land, but also it was not necessary for the owners for the cultivation of the other raiyati lands. The learned Judicial Commissioner says: “For the purpose of cultivation they have houses in other villages. These two houses are meant to be used as shops and the judgment debtors were using these houses as shops and not appurtenance to the agricultural holding. Even the witness of the appellant judgment, debtor stated that they had separate residential house in their village and the attached houses were being used as shops.” Para 4:- A little later on, the learned Judge makes similar observations: “Plot no. 771, though noted as part of the raiyati holding No. 74, once upon a time in 1908, it has altogether lost its nature as raiyati land. 771, though noted as part of the raiyati holding No. 74, once upon a time in 1908, it has altogether lost its nature as raiyati land. It is now a residence of shop-keepers, and its possession is quite unconnected with the agricultural operations on the west of the holding and in fact on other portions of the holding the judgment-debtor and his co-sharers have houses. Here it might have been acquired once upon a time for cultivation though even this is not clear, but for some time past it is being used as residence of shopkeepers and it would be highly inequitable to extend to this sort of land and house obviously unconnected with agricultural operations, the protection from saleability by money decree which was intended only for agricultural lands.” Para 5:- The view of one learned Judicial Commissioner is supported by the cases in A.I.R. 1933 Pat. 105, [(35) 22 A.I.R. 1935 Pat. 105, Rama Charan v. Gobindram.] and A.I.R. 1937 Pat. 321 [(’37) 24 A.I.R. 1937 Pat. 321 : 16 Pat. 316 : 169 I.C. 872, Ghasiram Marwari v. Shiba Prosad Singh.] and an unreported decision given by a Division Bench of this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 318 of 1933 decided by the late Chief Justice, Courtney Terrell, C.J., and Varma, J., on 27th March 1936. The learned Advocate for the appellant drew our attention to the case in 8 P.L.T. 671 [(27) 14 A.I.R. 1927 Pat. 324 : 6 Pat. 440 : 104 I.C. 218 : 8 P.L.T. 671, Mt. Bibi Aisha v. Mahabir Prasad] and argues that it is immaterial to what use the land is now being put if it is held or found that the original character of the land of which the portion in dispute is now sought to be sold was raiyati. Para 6:- In face of the decisions, cited above, this argument is not acceptable to us. It may appear some what hard if the point of view of the judgment debtor alone is seen. On the other hand, the decree-holder is losing his valuable right of a decree which he has obtained from a competent Court. I would dismiss this appeal, but there will be no order as to costs.” 52. It may appear some what hard if the point of view of the judgment debtor alone is seen. On the other hand, the decree-holder is losing his valuable right of a decree which he has obtained from a competent Court. I would dismiss this appeal, but there will be no order as to costs.” 52. Accordingly, this Court finds that the learned Civil Judge has rightly held that the plaintiff has no cause of action for filing this suit and has decided this Issue against the plaintiff-appellant. This Court fully concurs with the reasons given in the impugned judgment dated 26.02.2018 by the learned Civil Judge. 53. It appears that the learned Court below has held that so far as maintainability of the suit is concerned, this suit is not maintainable in the Civil Court because there is no lis, State has never demanded rent but the plaintiff forcibly wants to give it. In fact, the power of declaring a land chhaperbandi vest under section 2(9) of the Khas Mahal is with the Revenue Commissioner. The preliminary duty of record of right, nature of land etc. lies with the executive and not with the Civil Court. The State has given no clue that nature of the land has changed. The permission granted from R.R.D.A. does not change the nature of land because R.R.D.A. is not a State in the matter of grant of chhaperbandi rent. It is the State who has realized it and not the R.R.D.A. Therefore, without consent of State declaration of chhaperbandi rent will be illegal. 54. However, learned counsel for the appellant is correct that there is no provision like Section 2(9) in Khas Mahal Mannual and going through the provisions of Khas Mahal Mannual, it would appear that Rule 9 prescribes for levying Salami in Government estates whereas Section 9 (2) prescribes Salami to be charged should be a fixed multiple of the rental of the land settled, the rental being assessed at rates applicable to lands of similar quality and with similar advantages in the vicinity. However, wrong recording of certain provisions will not render the judgment illegal. 55. This Court finds that the learned Court below has given correct reasons by observing that the power to change the nature of land lies with the Executive and not with the Civil Court. However, wrong recording of certain provisions will not render the judgment illegal. 55. This Court finds that the learned Court below has given correct reasons by observing that the power to change the nature of land lies with the Executive and not with the Civil Court. Even the State Government has not taken any step for realizing the rent in the form of chapparbandi rent and till date the State/Revenue Authorities has not raised any complaint with regard to the nature of rent being realized from the plaintiff appellant and the plaintiff is suo motu raising this issue without any valid reason. The Revenue Authorities has neither raised objection against the construction of Birsa Hotel Pvt. Limited at any point of time nor has raised any objection against any activities carried out inside the hotel, i.e. for running the restaurant and for maintaining the rooms etc. and no dispute has been raised on behalf of the Revenue Authorities regarding demand of any particular form of rent. 56. Thus, the rent realized from the plaintiff-appellant has not been disputed even till date by the Revenue Authorities and even at the time of hearing of this First Appeal. 57. Thus, in view of the discussions made above, this Court finds that the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No.I has rightly rejected the claim of the plaintiff to the effect the suit is not maintainable in the Civil Court and this Court fully concurs with the findings of the learned Court below. Thus, this issue of maintainability is also decided against the plaintiff appellant. 58. In view of the discussions made above, this Court finds that there is no merit in this First Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed and the judgment dated 26.02.2018 and decree dated 05.03.2018, passed by the learned Court below is hereby confirmed. 59. Let a decreed be prepared by the Office accordingly.