IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 67 of 2009
Yamuna Prasad Sah ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and others ... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. Y. EQBAL
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. K. SINHA
------
For the Appellant: Mr. V. Shivnath
For the Respondents: Mr. L.K. Lal, S.C. (L&C)
------
2/ 02.4.2009
. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated
22.12.2008 passed in W.P.C. No. 84 of 2005 by which the learned
Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition by passing the following
order:
“Heard the parties.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged
the order dated 29.08.2002 contained in Annexure 10
passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Godda
decreeing the suit by declaring right, title and interest over
the property in question and further declaring the
possession of the petitioner who was defendant No. I in the
said case to be illegal and the decree-holder was held to be
entitled to the property in question. The petitioner has also
challenged the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner
in an appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid
order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Godda (Annexure
10), dismissing the appeal as well as the order dated
6.12.2004 (Annexure 20) passed by the Commissioner,
Santhal Parganas Division, Dumka dismissing the Second
appeal filed by the petitioner.
After hearing the parties and after going through
the impugned orders, I find that all the three courts i.e. the
original Court, the first appellate court as well as the
second appellate Court elaborately considered the
respective case of the parties and thereafter have arrived at
the findings on facts on consideration of the evidence and
materials on record.
This court in exercise of the power under Article
226 of the Constitution does not find any reason
whatsoever to disturb the concurrent findings on facts
arrived at by the three courts.
Accordingly, having found no merit, this writ
application is dismissed.”
2. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
drawn our attention to various annexures and the orders passed by
the authorities and submitted that the court below including the
learned Single Judge had committed error of law in rejecting the
claim of the appellant. It appears that the suit filed by the plaintiff-
2
respondent being Title Suit No. 33 of 1993 was decreed. The
respondent-appellant challenged the said decree by filing appeal
before the Deputy Commissioner cum Settlement Officer, Dumka
but the same was dismissed. The appellant then moved the
Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division by filing Second Appeal
No. 101 of 2004. The Commissioner after re-appreciating the entire
facts and evidence affirmed the finding recorded by the Trial Court
and the Appellate Court. So far the claim of the appellant on the
basis of Bhudan Patta is concerned, the commissioner held as
under:
“Next argument has been advanced by the
defendant-appellant regarding his claim on the basis of
Bhoodan Patta. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsels of both the parties in this regard. The alleged
Bhoodan Patta is dt. 25.4.69.
The plaintiffs stated that they have never donated
the suit land at any time. The Bhoodan Patta dt. 25.5.84 is
false and antedated. The confirmation of the Bhoodan case
vide Bhoodan confirmation case No. 1/1986-87 after over
17 years of actual donation of land/Danpatra is fraudulent,
illegal and in gross violation of the provisions of the Bihar
Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954. Further, it has been submitted
that the defendant 1st party-appellant claimed the suit land
earlier on the basis of Kurfa in Title suit no. 49/74 and title
suit no. 62/75 marked exhibits in the suit. Therefore,
Bhoodan patta is out and out false and concocted.
However, it appears that D.C., Godda by an order dt.
4.9.02 passed in R.M.A. no. 3/2000-2001 (Shashi Mahto &
others Vrs. Jamuna Pd. Shah) after considering all the
facts, documents and hearing the parties set aside the order
dt. 25.1.2000 confirming the Bhoodan Patta of LRDC,
Godda made exhibit in the lower court in the Title suit.
Deputy Commissioner, Godda in his judgment elaborately
discussed all the facts and documents in this regard by
observing gross violation of provisions of The Bihar
Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 and rules made thereunder. It is
very important to note that the defendant-appellant claimed
the suit land on the basis of Kurfa in 1975. Then, how it is
possible for him to contend that the said land could be
donated in Bhoodan in the year 1969. It is, thus, clear and
the defendant-appellant in any view of the matter tried to
grab the suit land taking the advantage of The Bihar
Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954. The law does not recognize
such act of fraud for grabbing the land by the defendant. It
has also been contended on behalf of the plaintiffs-
respondent 1st party that the appellant is not a Jamabandi
raiyat of Mauza Jamua. He is a resident of Mouza Saroni.
He is a big business man having large area of lands at
different places. Since the Bhoodan Patta has already been
cancelled by the D.C., Godda the defendant-appellant can
not claim now on the basis of the said Bhoodan patta, so
long order of cancellation of patta by the superior court is
not set aside. The appellant filed Revenue Misc. Revision
No. 21/2002-03 in this court against the order dt. 4.9.02 of
D.C. Godda passed in R.M.A. No. 3/2000-01 (Shasi
3Mahato & others Vrs. Yamuna Pd. Shah) Setting aside the
order dt 25.10.2000 of LRDC Godda in Bhoodan
Confirmation case no. 1/86-87 and cancelling the Bhoodan
Patta dated 25.5.84. 1 heard both the parties in Revenue
Misc. Revision No. 21/02-03, perused the documents and
impugned order and finding no illegality or infirmity in the
impugned order of D.C., Godda, I have rejected the
revision petition filed by the appellant on 6.12.04. Thus, the
claim of the appellant on the basis of the Bhoodan Patta
does not stand in any view of the matter.”
3. Having regard to the finding of facts recorded by the
authorities, in our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge
rightly held that the findings arrived at by the three courts cannot
be interfered with.
4. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal, which is
accordingly, dismissed.
(M. Y. Eqbal, J)
(D. K. Sinha, J)
Alankar