RAMGARH CANTONMENT BOARD Vs. ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by which the order dated 20.02.2018 (Annexure-2) passed in Title Appeal No.19 of 2010 by Additional District Judge, Ramgarh is under challenge, whereby and whereunder application filed by the petitioner under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 51 has been rejected.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the plaintiffs/respondents have filed Title Appeal No.133 of 2001 for declaration of title over 35 decimals of land in Plot no.432, Khata no.23 of village Ramgarh but acording to the petitioners the entire 5.38 acres of land belongs to the petitioners Board which has come into existence in the year 1941. The entire land was given by the Court of Wards in favour of the petitioners (Board) and was vested in the State under the provisions of Land Reforms Act, 1950, during the continuance of Court of Wards, the Manager, Ramgarh (Court of Wards) granted a lease dated 02.06.1931 to one Dublin University to use the land measuring 5.38 acres in hospital and horticulture purpose, for a period of 15 years on payment of nominal rent and as such the said land did not came in Khas possession of Kamakhya Narayan Singh, the landlord. It is the further case of the petitioners that wife of Raja Kamakhya Narayan Singh, Maharani Lalita Rajlaxmi filed T.S. No.08 of 1964 claiming right, title and interest over 5.38 acres of land in which the petitioners-Board was made defendant no.33. In the said suit in paragraph 4 of the plaint the plaintiff has admitted that the land measuring 5.38 acres comprising Plot no.440, 431, 436, 437, 432, 438, 439 including building premises and outhouse were transferred to the Cantonment Board. It was further stated that the suit property along with other lands was given to her by way of Kharposh by Raja Ramgarh.

(3.) Rejoinder to that petition has been filed making objection therein and on appreciating the stand taken by the parties the petition filed under Order XLI Rule 27 has been rejected by the impugned order which is under scrutiny by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.