KARTICK CHANDRA MONDAL Vs. STATE OF W B

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment of the Court was as follows : This Second Appeal arises out of a Suit for declaration of Title, confirmation of possession and injunction. In the plaint, the plaintiff made out the case which is inter alia as follows : Plot Nos. 984/1995 and 985 appertaining R.S. Khatian No. 5656 of Mouza Punra. The rental was Rs. 5-4-0. The land belonged to the plaintiff's predecessor Panchanan Mondal. The share of the plaintiff in the above Jama is 14 annas, 8 gandas and the Jama of the proforma Defendant No. 2 is 1 anna, 12 gandas. North to the above Plot is river Ichhamati. Due to gradual and imperceptible recession of river the disputed two acres as described in the (Ka) Schedule of the plaint took place gradually. According to the plaintiff this recession took place long before the introduction of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Similarly accretion of 2.56 acres of Plot No. 15365 appertaining to Khatian No. 4532, referred to the (Kha) Schedule of the plaint took place in which the plaintiffs have 66 cents representing 1/4th share of the Jama. And the balance land belonged to proforma Defendant Nos. 3 to 5. According to the plaintiffs, since the aforementioned accretion, the plaintiffs have been in possession of the disputed (ka) and (kha) Schedule of lands. It has been further stated by the plaintiffs that their total land, including the Suit land through out West Bengal is only 25 Bighas. The disputed land have wrongly been recorded in the names of the plaintiffs during the R.S. operation which has allowed their title. As the local Tehshildar refused to accept rent in respect of the suit land and the plaintiffs were informed of the proposed settlement of the said lands with others by J.L.R.O., hence the plaintiffs filed the instant suit.

(2.) The above suit has been contested by Defendant No. 1, State of West Bengal by filing a written statement inter alia denying the plaintiffs title and possession in the suit land. The defence case as has been made out in the written statement is that the disputed Char land were formed after 31.07.1965 due to abrupt change of the river Ichhamati and the said lands of the Mouza lying opposite to the Punra Mouza. The accretion was not made in slow and gradual process. But the plaintiff's possession of the same is part and parcel of their tenancies recorded in Khatian No. 5656 and 4532. Hence the suit should be dismissed.

(3.) The learned trial Judge after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties decreed the suit on contest with costs against the Defendant No. 1, State of West Bengal and ex-parte without costs against the rest.