Posted On by &filed under High Court, Jharkhand High Court.

Jharkhand High Court
Smt. Meena Devi And Ors. vs Nizamuddin Ansari And Ors. on 6 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003 (51) BLJR 488, 2003 (1) JCR 591 Jhr
Author: M Eqbal
Bench: M Eqbal


M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30th July, 1988 passed by the Land. Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 187/1986 whereby he has disallowed the reference made under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act at the instance of the applicants-appellants.

2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. In 1984 the land of Mauja Taranga, P.S. Baghmara, district-Dhanbad including the disputed land was acquired by the State of Bihar for BCCL for its mining purposes. The land measuring 3 acres 39 decimals in total out of which 40 decimals of plot No. 1451, 12 decimals of plot No. 1451/2, 5 decimals of plot No. 1462 and 1 acre 32 decimals of plot No. 1352 of khata No. 44 was acquired and award No. 11 was prepared in the names of the opposite parties-respondents. The applicants-appellants filed their objection petition before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming compensation of the aforesaid award on the ground that they are the rightful owners. The dispute was eventually referred by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 30 of the said Act to the Land Acquisition Judge, Dhanbad.

3. The case of the respondents is that the land was originally recorded in the name of one Damodarchand Lal and others in the Cadestral Survey records of right. Said Damodarchand Lal and his brothers surrendered the land to the ex-landlord in the year, 1966 by a registered deed of surrender. The ex-landlord, namely, Raja Nilkanth Narayan Singh came in possession of the disputed I land and continued possession thereof till his death. Said Raja Nilkanth Narayan Singh died leaving behind his son, Kamakhya Narayan Singh and widow, Kumari Tara Devi as his legal heirs. Smt. Gyani Maharani is the wife and Satyendra Narayan Singh is the son of Kamakhya Narayan Singh. Due to family dispute Satyendra Narayau Singh filed a partition suit being partition suit No. 35/66 for partition of his 1/4th share including the suit land. The said suit was decreed on 30.5.1968 where by it is alleged that Smt. Gyani Maharani and Satyendra Narayan Singh got one and half share in the suit land. Appellants’ further case was that they purchased the suit and from Satyendra Narayan Singh and Gyani Maharani in 1955 and, therefore, they are entitled to the compensation amount and the award ought to have been published in their names. The respondents, on the other hand, claimed the land on the basis of transfer made by Raja Kamakhya Narayan Singh in the year 1966. Respondents’ case is that after purchasing the suit land in the year 1966 they came in possession of the same and got their names mutated in the revenue records of the State of Bihar and they have been paying rent and taxes in their names.

4. Both the parties led evidences before the Court below. The Court below, after considering the evidences, oral and documentary, recorded the following findings :

“Heard the argument of learned Advocate of both the parties at length. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that they purchased 3/4th share from Raja Satyendra Narayan Singh and Raj Mata Gyani Maharani in this acquired land. Hence they are entitled to get 3/4th share of the awarded money. The learned Advocate also submitted that the member of the opposite party purchased the acquired land from Raja Kamakhya Narayan Singh who had only 1/4th share in the acquired land. Hence opposite party members are jointly entitled to get only l/4th share of the compensation of acquired land. He further argued that the opposite party member purchased the land from Raja Kamakhya Narayan Singh while title suit No. 35/66 was going on hence as per principles of les pendence the member of opposite party are only entitled to the share of Raja Kamakhya Narayan Singh

and not beyond that. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the opposite party argued that as per case of both the parties the original land belongs to one Damodarchand Lal who surrendered the land in favour of ex-landlord, Raja Nilkanth Narayan Singh in the year 1936 and since then Raja Nilkanth Narayan Singh was coming in possession over the all surrendered land including the acquired land in this case. It is further case of both the parties that after the death of Raja Nilkanth Narayan Singh his son Raja Kamakhya Narayan Singh came in possession. Hence he argued that it is the admitted case of both the parties that Raja Kamakhya Narayan Singh was in possession of the suit land who sold the entire acquired land including other lands to the member of the opposite party in the year 1966 and since the name of the opposite party were mutated over the suit land and they are paying rent to the State of Bihar and they are cultivating the suit land prior to acquisition by the State of Bihar for BCCL. He further argued that in the aforesaid title suit No. 35/66 only preliminary decree was passed and no final decree was drawn if any hence it cannot be said that Raja Satyendra Narayan Singh of Gyani Maharani came in possession over any specified portion of the land. He further argued that these members of opposite party have no knowledge of the aforesaid title suit since in that title suit ex-parte decree was passed and from the sale deed executed by the applicant it is apparent that Raja Satyendra Narayan Singh and Raj Mata Gyani Maharani had knowledge about the transfer of land to the members of opposite party by Raja Kamakhya Narayan Singh. Hence they should be impleaded as member of opposite party as party in the aforesaid title suit since these members of opposite party have been impleaded as party in the title suit No. 35/66 which was decided ex-parte hence the decree of this suit is not binding upon them. Moreover from this very preliminary decree it does not appear that Raja Satyendra Narayan Singh and Raj Mata

Gyani Maharani also came in possession of any specified portion of the land. In support of his contention the learned Advocate relied upon the ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1953 page 487 para 11 in which it has been held that purchaser of undivided interest of co-parcener including his son’s interest : predecessor held did not acquire title but in defined share in property and or not entitled to joint possession from the date of his purchase and he should work out his right only by the suit of partition and his right of possession acted from the period when specified allotment was made in his favour. Purchaser’s right of profit of the date from the date of partition. Hence as per this ruling if the applicant has purchased undivided right of Raja Satyendra Narayan Singh and Raj Mata Gyani Maharani of the joint family property they should have brought a partition suit unless they came in possession over the specific portion of share they are neither entitled for any title or possession. The present ruling is fully applicable in the present circumstance of the case. Hence in the present case as discussed above it is apparent that the above applicants are not entitled to get any share in the compensation amount of the award.”

5. Mr. Debi Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that the Court below has neither considered nor discussed the evidence or recorded any finding with regard to title to the suit land. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly during the pendency of the partition suit the respondents purchased the suit land from Raja Kamakhya Narayan Singh and, therefore, it is hit by the principles of the lis-pendence.

6. From perusal of the records it appears that the admitted case of the parties are that at one point of time late Kamakhya Narayan Singh and his wife, Kumari Tara Devi were the absolute owner of the entire property left by Raja Nilkanth Narayan Singh. Late Kamakhya Narayan Singh sold the suit land in favour of the respondents

in the year 1966 by virtue of a registered sale deed. The respondents, after the said transfer, came in possession of the land and got their names mutated in all revenue records and they have been paying rent to the State of Bihar.

7. On the other hand, it was only after publication of the notice for the acquisition of the land, the appellants alleged to have purchased the land by registered sale deeds in the year 1985.

8. The Court below recorded a finding that in all the sale deeds whereby the appellants purchased the land, there is no mention of the boundary of the purchased land. The Court below also found that after the preliminary decree was passed, no final decree was prepared. Admittedly, therefore, the appellants purchased the land being the portion of plots without mentioning the actual boundary of the land and that too after the land was acquired by the State of Bihar. On the contrary, the names of the respondents were entered in the revenue records on the basis of the purchase and specified portion of the land. The Land Acquisition Officer, therefore, rightly prepared the award in favour of the respondents. The finding recorded by the Court below is fully justified inasmuch as the same is supported by evidence.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is, accordingly dismissed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.186 seconds.