MAHARAJ PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs appellants have filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 3.6.1986, passed by Additional Subordinate Judge, III, Aurangabad, in Title Appeal No. 3 of 1973/11 of 1984, whereby the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Munsif, Aurangabad, in Title Suit No. 156 of 1965/43 of 1978. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration of title to hold 'mela ' and 'hat ' on the suit land whicn was recorded in the survey Khatiyan as gair mazrua malik land and after the survey it was brought under cultivation and became 'bakasht ' land in cultivating possession of the land lord of Kunda Estate. The land was settled with Smt. Shiv Bachhan Devi in the year 1342 Fasli on nakdi rental basis and she continued in the possession and paid rent to the (and lord. Smt. Shiv Bachhan Devi managed the suit land through her brother and Mukhtar Ram, Raghav Narain Singh. After coming in possession of the land, Smt. Shiv Bachhan Devi started holding 'mela ' and 'hat ' on the suit land on one day, i.e., Kartik Purnima day and she used to realise toll and rent. Smt. Shiv Bachhan Devi sold the land to the plaintiffs under registered sale deed dated 6.4.1964 and put the plaintiff in possession of the land. The Anchal Adhikari, Kutumba, and other local officers were threatening to usurp the plaintiffs ' right to hold 'mela 'and 'hat 'on the suit land. The plaintiffs have right to hold the 'mela ' and 'hat ' and to realise its profits.

(2.) THE defendant, State of Bihar, through Collector, had contested the suit and filed written statement. According to the defendant, the suit land was gair mazrua malik and had never become the 'bakasht ' land of the ex -land lord and had remained gair mazrua malik character till it vested in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The alleged settlement of the land in favour of Smt. Shiv Bachhan Devi sister of Raghav Narain Singh is ante dated, collusive and fictitious and she never came in possession of the suit land. Smt. Shiv Bachhan Devi had not acquired any occupancy right as she did not hold 'mela ' on the suit land. The alleged purchase of the land by the plaintiff is collusive and without consideration and inoperative and the plaintiffs have not acquired any title and possession. The plaintiff and his vendor had no possession over the suit land and 'mela ' was never held on the land on behalf of the plaintiffs or the vendor. The State of Bihar has been in actual and physical possession of the land from the date of its vesting in the State and 'mela ' and 'hat ' are being held annually by settlement at the instance of the State of Bihar. The said Raghav Narain Singh had taken settlements in some years and so the plaintiffs and his predecessors in interest are stopped from unallenging the right of the State of Bihar to hold 'mela ' and exercise other sairat rights.

(3.) IT was submitted by the learned lawyer for the appellant that the trial court had not framed specific issue that whether the settlement of land was done by the exland lord and therefore the judgment of the Court below is vitiated. It was contended by the learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar that the trial Court has specifically mentioned in the judgment that the whole question for determination is whether the suit lands is gair mazrua malik land vested in the State of Bihar or the plaintiffs are the occupancy raiyats of the suit land and the trial court has held in its judgment that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are occupancy raiyats of the suit lands and that the suit lands as gair mazrua malik lands had not vested in the State of Bihar. The contention of the learned Government Advocate is tenable. Therefore the judgment of the Court below is not vitiated.