PINAKI RANJAN MAITY Vs. SABUJ KUMAR SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arising out of a common judgment and appellate decree affirming the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court passed in two suits instituted by the plaintiff respondents, are taken up for analogous hearing.

(2.) THE facts of this case may be summarized as follows:- One Rani Haripriya who was the proprietor of a temporary settled estate under Touzi No.2717 of Midnapore Collectorate granted a tenure sometime in the year 1879 to one Nanda Lal Roy in respect of 879 Bighas out of about 904 Bighas, as alleged by the defendants, more or less of Kanthibari by a registered patta, the actual area under settlement being disputed. On the immediate south-west of this Chawk lay the river known as Rasulpur or Bagda river. With the rescission of what might be called perennial flow of this river from a portion of its bed emerged lands covering a large area which gradually appeared to have formed a part of the lands appertaining to the Chawk. In or about the year 1910, under the then settlement operation a new Touzi No.3037 was created which comprised also the accreted lands as well as a strip of 25 Bighas land which, as claimed by the defendants, were said to have been reserved by Rani Haripriya at the time of grant of tenature to Nandalal Roy. In or about the year 1917, the heirs of Nanda Lal Roy sold their tenure to the predecessor of Krishna Prasad Panigrahi and to other defendant Nos. 23 to 25. In 1920 the State Government which then took over the management of Rani's estate conferring only Malikana rights on her or her heirs in respect of the Touzi brought two title suits in the Court of Munsif at Contai in the District of Midnapore, against Panigrahis and some of the present plaintiffs or their predecessors in interest who were said to have been possessing the lands as occupancy raiyats under the Panigrahis tenure-holder for declaration of its title to the then accreted char lands and for recovery of possession and in the alternative for assessment of rent. Although these two suits for recovery of possession were dismissed on a finding that the disputed lands were accretioins to the disputed Touzi, the Court passed a decree on the alternative prayer for assessment of rent of revenue in favour of the State government against the Panigrahi defendants at a certain rate per Bigha. In course of time, in or about the year 1937 in consequence of revisional settlement operation these char lands were recorded as part of the Touzi No.2717 and the other estate Touzi No.3037 was abolished. In or about the year 1944, the Panigrahis sold the tenure to one Bhupendra Nath Dinda, since deceased, husband of Kadambini Dinda (defendant No.1 in the suit). Since thereafter as the Rasulpur river was gradually drying up resulting in formation of further 'char lands' on a contiguous portion of the same river bed, Bhupendra brought a title suit in 1949 against the State Government for declaration of his title as a tenure �holder and for consequential reliefs in respect of these lands which, however ended in a compromise. In or about the year 1950, disputes arose between Bhupendra and the present plaintiffs in both the suit regarding possession of these char lands and proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were started. These proceedings, however, ended in favour of Bhupendra who was found and declared by the S.D.O. Contai, by its order dated 14.08.1951 to be in actual possession of these char lands. Thereafter, in 1952 several plaintiffs, respondent Nos. 1 to 10 jointly instituted a suit for declaration and recovery of possession of these char lands and for other relief claiming their tenancy right as occupancy raiyats in respect of the portions of such lands forming such tenancies under the Panigrahis. In or about the year 1954, one Sudhir Chandra Panigrahi alone as plaintiff instituted another suit claiming same relief in respect of a portion of such land forming part of his tenancy as occupancy raiyat.

(3.) THE State appeared and contested the suit on presenting written statement in which it challenged amongst other things the maintainability of suit for want of notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code and also in consequence of vesting of Estate under the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act.