SUDARSHAN NAYAK Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 12.2.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, FTC-II, Saraikella in Title Appeal No. 10 of 1993. The appellants had filed title Suit in the court of Munsif, Saraikella being Title Suit No. 17 of 1990 praying for declaration of their title and for confirmation of possession in respect of the land of R.S. Khata No. 50, Plot No. 268, area 7 Acres, corresponding to C.S. Plot No. 255/A. area 14 Bigha towards northern side of Mouza Repcha. Thana No. 27, P.S. Gamharia, District Singhbhum East.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff was that the said land originally belonged to erstwhile Seraikella Estate before its merger into the dominion of India on 16th August, 1957. During the regime of Rulars there were various agencies to look after and control the revenue affairs of the villages such as Thikedar, Dakua and Village Pradhan. Thikedar of village was vested with power to settle waste land to the villagers and collect rent. The village Thikedar of Repcha settled northern side of C.S. Plot No. 255 to the plaintiff. After settlement, the plaintiff converted the settled land in the cultivable land after incurring huge expenses Such settlements were also made in favour of several other persons who also cleared forests and made the land cultivable. The land was also used for residential purposes. The plaintiff has been coming in possession of the land after the settlement for more than 49 years openly and adversely to all concerned. He acquired indefeasible raiyati right over the same. Contrary to the plaintiff's right the said land was wrongly recorded in the name of Forest Department, Government of Bihar "Van Vibhag Bihar Sarkar" in the last survey se ttlement Operation of 1958-61. A new Khata No. 50 was carved out of the land. The plaintiff, for the first time, came to know about the said wrong entry after 7.11.1989 when the Staff of the defendant No. 1 threatened the plaintiff to implicate in criminal cases if he fails to vacate the suit land. That gave rise to the cause of action for the suit. Notice, as required under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was thereafter served on the defendant and after expiry of the statutory period the suit was filed.

(3.) The defendant-Divisional Forest Officer, North Division, Chaibasa contested the suit by filing written statement. The defendant challenged the maintainability of the suit on various grounds including limitation, waiver, acquisence, estoppel and vagueness in the description of the suit land. The defendant admitted that the suit land was once held and possessed by the Ruler of Seraikella Estate and that Ruler had power to settle the land and the Thikedars were not empowered to settle any land. In the C.5. Record of Right suit land was recorded in C.S. Plot No. 255 of village Repcha as jungle land. The Raja had absolute authority to settle waste land and forest land by an order or by issuing "Angya Patra". No settlement was made in favour of the plaintiff by the Ruler of the Estate, neither the Ruler had recognised the plaintiff as raiyat. The Seraikella Estate was annexed with the dominion of India and control thereof was taken over by the Government of Bihar. By notification dated 14th October, 1954 the Government of Bihar brought the forest land of village Repcha under 'protected forest' under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the administration and control of the said forest land came under the Forest Department. During the survey and settlement of 1958-61 the said jungle land in C.S. Plot No. 255 was recorded as new Plot No. 268 under Khata No. 50 of village Repcha in the name of "Van Vibhag Bihar Sarkar". The plaintiff never raised any objection at any stage of the survey operation. The plaintiff also never challenged the notification of Forest Department declaring the jungle land of village 'Repcha as protected forest. The forest lands are marked by planting pillars. Suit Plot No. 268 is within the boundary of the forest pillars. The plaintiff was not in possession of the land at any point of time and he has not acquired any right, title over the suit land. The story of alleged settlement by the Thikedar is wholly false and concocted. The plaintiff has been trying to grab the forest land. The suit filed by the plaintiff is frivolous and is liable to be dismissed.