HARADHAN DHIBAR Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After the application dated 29.06.2016 for amendment in the plaint was rejected, the petitioners have approached this Court.

(2.) Briefly stated, Title Suit No. 261 of 2014 was instituted for declaration of the plaintiffs' raiyati right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule property. A decree for confirmation of their possession and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession over the schedule land was also sought. The petitioners have claimed their right, title and interest over the suit property on the basis of a Hukumnama granted to their father by the exlandlord who accepted the rent from their father. It is pleaded that the exlandlord namely, Gurupado Shil and Kashi Nath Shil filed return of their tenureship, on the basis of which Compensation Case No. 5217 of 195556 was registered. In the said return (BibraneeI) name of Amulya Kewat appears at Sl. No. 55 and 56. It also reflects quantum of rent realized from Amulya Kewat. It is further pleaded that the plaintiffs filed cases under Section 87 of C.N.T. Act for correction in the entries in R.S. Khata No. 83, MouzaGopalganj which were registered as Suit No. 2205 of 2007, disposed on 18.02.2009; Suit No. 2206 of 2007 which was disposed of on 03.06.2009 and Suit No. 91 of 2010 was disposed of by an order dated 14.08.2010. By these orders the Settlement Officer, Dhanbad directed deletion of the name of the defendants from R.S. Khata No. 83 and, accordingly, name of the plaintiffs got substituted therein. The plaintiffs have claimed that the settlee namely, Amulya Kewat reclaimed the suit land as agriculture land under the right of Korkar and continued in possession by growing paddy and other crops from 1940. It is asserted that they excavated small tanks over the land for the purpose of irrigation. The suit was instituted after the notice under Section 80 CPC was served upon the defendants on 20.06.2014.

(3.) Initially the defendants were debarred from filing written statement, however, by order dated 14.09.2015 the written statement was taken on record. The defendants have claimed that the entire suit schedule land pertaining to Mouza Gopalganj is partly stonny and partly puratan patit. It is asserted that the vacant fallow lands recorded under Gair Abad Malik Khata belong to the State. Possession of any other person over a part of the suit schedule land has been disputed and claim of settlement through Sada Hukumnama has been resisted on the ground of bar under Section 16 (sic Section 17) of the Indian Registration Act. The defendants have also raised a plea that the plaintiffs have failed to produce any Kabuliyat executed by the settlee to the exlandlord and thus, the settlement by way of lease was void abinitio.