LAWS(PAT)-1960-3-10

BASTACOLLA COLLIERY CO LTD Vs. BANDHU BELDAR

Decided On March 23, 1960
BASTACOLLA COLLIERY CO.LTD Appellant
V/S
BANDHU BELDAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals by the plaintiff, a company called Bastacolla Colliery Co". Ltd., arise out of two suits for ejectment of the principal defendants from certain lands situated in village Bastacolla and for issue of directions to those defendants to remove all structures and materials from the lands in suits within the time fixed by the Court. The appeals have been placed for disposal before this Bench owing to a conflict of decisions in this Court on two of the points involved in them. They have been heard together, and both are being disposed of by this judgment.

(2.) It is not disputed that New Beerbhum Coal Company Limited previously held the underground coal-mining rights and surface rights in the lands of the whole of village Bastacolla, with the exception of some culturable lands, as permanent lessees, nor is it disputed that the plaintiff company has acquired them from the New Beerbhum Coal Co. Ltd. It further appears that Ganpat Beldar (deceased), the husband of defendant No. 1 in Title Suit No. 150/14 of 1950/52, who has also since died, and Bandhu Beldar, the only principal defendant in Title Suit No. 151/17 of 1950/52, executed kabuliyats in the year 1.920 in respect of the lands in dispute in the two suits in favour of the New Beerbhum Coal Co. Ltd.; but the company did not execute any patta in their favour.

(3.) Shortly stated, the plaintiff's case in both the suits is that Ganpat and Bandhu verbally took lease of the lands in dispute for residential purposes in 1920, and that subsequent execution of kabuliyats by them did not legally create any permanent lease in their favour in the absence o pattas. Their names were later wrongly recorded in the survey khatian as raiyati kaimi tenants in respect of the lands in dispute in the two suits. The principal defendants (who will henceforth be referred to as the defendants) are, in fact, tenants" holding leases from month to month. The plaintiff gave them due notices to quit; but they have not vacated the lands.