NASIM KHAN Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Raising their claims over the property in question through order and settlement dated 07.11.1994 and 31.03.1998, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. was filed in Title Appeal No. 03 of 1996. The said application has been dismissed vide order dated 07.03.2005 and therefore, challenging the same the petitioners have approached this Court. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioners who claim themselves to be the riot victims of the communal riots, were settled by the State Government over the land comprised in Khata No. 1249 in Plot Nos. 3653 & 3588 situated at Mouja-Mango, Thana No. 1642 in Ward No. 8. The said piece of land is recorded in the Khatiyan in the name of the State of Bihar and it was allotted to the petitioners and their fathers through order dated 07.11.1994 and Settlement chart dated 31.03.1998. The petitioners were residing in the said property and they constructed substantial structure over the same. Recently, the petitioners came to know about the Title Suit No. 203 of 1990 which vide judgment and order dated 25.11.1995 was decreed in favour of one Habibur Rahman. The order dated 25.11.1995 has been challenged by the State of Bihar in Title Appeal No. 03 of 1996 which is pending in the Fast Track Court No. 7 at Jamshedpur. In these facts an application was filed on 27.01.2005 in the pending Title Appeal No. 03 of 1996 for being added as parties in the said Title Appeal. As noticed above, the said application has been dismissed vide order dated 07.03.2005 and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 namely, Habibur Rahman who died during the pendency of the present writ petition. It is stated that the land in Plot No. 526 comprising 6 1/2 Bighas originally belonged to one Praful Kumar Ghosh and others and they had the Darmokeshri rights over the said land. In the year, 1941 the property was settled in favour of Late Sardar Charan Singh Kalsi through registered deed of perpetual settlement of immovable property dated 18.12.1941 by the said Praful Kumar Ghosh and others. Thereafter, on the suit land Sardar Charan Singh Kalsi constructed houses and cultivated the same and used the same as Bagan known as "Sardarjiee Ka Bagan". After the death of Sardar Charan Singh Kalsi, his sons namely, Manmohan Singh, Guru Charan Singh and Bhupendra Singh came in possession over the suit land. In the survey settlement of the year, 1964, the suit land in plot Nos. 4721, 4722, 4724, 4725 and 4727 along with other lands were recorded in the name of Manmohan Singh and Guru Charan Singh in their raiyati rights. In the present survey, plot No. 3586 has been carved out from old plot Nos. 4722, 4724 and 4725 and the portion of plot No. 4721 whereas, the plot No. 3588 has been carved out from plot No. 4727 and a portion of plot No. 4721 of 1964 survey. Subsequently, Manmohan Singh and others sold the entire land to different persons including the plaintiff/respondent No. 2 after obtaining necessary permission from the competent authority. The respondent No. 2 had purchased a portion of R.S. Plot No. 4721 and 4727 (present survey plot No. 3588) having an area of 32 decimals through a registered sale deed dated 11.08.1986 on payment of consideration and since the purchase the respondent No. 2 has been in possession of the same. In the present survey however, both the plots bearing No. 3586 & 3588 were wrongly recorded in the name of State of Bihar. The vendors of the plaintiff/respondent No. 2 filed a case under Section 90 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act bearing Case No. 742 of 1984-85 against the State of Bihar for correcting the entry of plot No. 3586 and by order dated 14.10.1987, the Settlement Officer corrected entry in plot No. 3586 however, for plot No. 3588, it was held that no correction was required. The respondent No. 2 filed Title Appeal No. 203 of 1990 for declaration of Title and confirmation of his possession over an area of 32 decimals in plot No. 3588. The Suit was decreed and a decree for recovery of possession with respect to suit land was also passed. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 filed Execution Case No. 16 of 2001 and vide order dated 24.05.2004 the delivery of possession in favour of the respondent No. 2 was issued and pursuant thereof possession was delivered to the respondent No. 2. Vide order dated 07.03.2005 the claim of the writ petitioners that the suit property was settled in their favour has been not accepted and it has been held that the petitioners have failed to produce even a chit of paper before the Court to establish that the land has been settled in their favour.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.