- (1.)In 1901 the Raja of Jheria granted a permanent lease of the underground rights in coal in mauza Gareria to Babu Moheshwar Rai. A condition of the lease was that for the surface land which might be required for carrying on mining work, the lessees should pay a rent at the rate of Rs. 2 annually for land which had been uncultivated and Rs. 5 for paddy land, and that in addition to this they should pay compensation to the tenant if the land required should be in occupation of a tenant.
(2.)In 1907 a survey was made at the instance of the Raja for determination of the area of surface land for which rent was payable, at which the lessees were assessed for a small area of land acquired from the holding of Koka Mahto. During the ensuing years, the lessees by private contract acquired possession of the whole of Koka Mahto's holding of which the land was utilised for head-works of the colliery.
(3.)In 1918 the lessees granted a sub-lease to Fulohand Tioumji of the area with which we are concerned. In 1930 the receiver of the Jheria estate instituted a suit for arrears of rent against Koka Mahto who bad long ceased to have any concern with his former holding. A decree was obtained, in execution of which the holding was brought to sale when it was purchased by Nitai Lal Dutt. The purchaser then instituted a suit for ejectmend of the sub-lessees of the mining rights from the land which had formed the holding of Koka Mahto. The suit was decreed by the Munsif, but an order was made that execution of the decree should be delayed for one year in order to allow the sublessees to acquire the plaintiff's interest under Section 50, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. The Munsif's decision was reversed on appeal by the Sub-ordinate Judge, who found that Koka Mahto had not been in possession of any part of this area within twelve years of the rent suit and that his title had therefore been lost and had vested in the defendant sub-lessees. The decision of the Subordinate Judge was reversed and the plaintiff's suit was decreed in second appeal in the High Court. The learned Judge of this Court found that no question arose of the defendants being in possession adversely to the landlord, and that the defendants as sub-lessees had no right to enforce the covenants or the head lease, so that they could not claim that the landlord had delegated to them the right to buy out tenants who might be in occupation of land required for surface working.