LAWS(JHAR)-2003-9-153

PARMESHWAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On September 11, 2003
PARMESHWAR PRASAD Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs are petitioners. They filed Title Suit No. 30 of 1996 against the defendants -opposite parties for declaration of title over the suit land, detailed in Schedule 'A' to the plaint and for further declaration that the recommendation of Anchal Adhikari and Land Reforms Deputy Collector as well as order passed by the Sub -divisional Officer in Misc. Case No. 7 of 1995 -96 cancelling their jamabandi in Register II to be null and void and for permanent injunction from disturbing their peaceful possession thereon. They claimed to have purchased the suit land by registered sale deed dated 5.11.1969 from one Gobardhan Sao and his minor son, Kedar Sao and thereafter got their names mutated in the revenue records of the State Government and obtained receipt on payment of rent. The Sub -divisional Officer, Chatra on the recommendation of Land Reform Deputy Collector and Anchal Adhikari concerned cancelled the jamabandi standing in the names of the plaintiffs in Register II, the tenant's ledger maintained by the State Government.

(2.) THE suit land admittedly stood recorded as Bakast in the Khatiyan. The plaintiff's did not produce the return jamabandi filed by the ex -landlord at the time of vesting of the Zamadari showing the suit lands in his khas possession so as to save it from vesting. It was also not clarified by the plaintiffs that ex -landlord after vesting got fair rent fixed in respect of suit land by the competent authority under the provisions of Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. In such situation, in my view, both the courts below rightly not granted interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.

(3.) THE court of appeal below while recording concurrent findings of fact also observed that at this stage it was neither appropriate nor proper to give any finding on the title over the disputed land. The Plaintiff's were out of possession and the school building was already constructed over the suit land under the sanctioned scheme of the Government of India, ministry of Human Resources.