ROHIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
LAWS(SC)-2006-10-51
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on October 17,2006

ROHIT SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAMESH CHAND ARDAWATIYA VS. ANIL PANJWANI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

KOLKATA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. BBT ELEVATED ROAD PVT. LTD. [LAWS(CAL)-2023-10-75] [REFERRED TO]
DAMODHAR NARAYAN SAWALE (D) VS. SHRI TEJRAO BAJIRAO MHASKE [LAWS(SC)-2023-5-24] [REFERRED TO]
KAMMA BAI VS. GULAB BAI [LAWS(MPH)-2014-7-359] [REFERRED TO]
BASANT KUMAR UDASI VS. SMT. PUSHPA TIWARI AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-1-75] [REFERRED TO]
J. THOMAS VS. S. KARUPPUSAMY [LAWS(MAD)-2023-1-448] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH MALVIYA VS. SHAMBHUNATH SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2009-11-26] [REFERRED TO]
SATYAPAL SINGH VS. FIRM SWASTIK PLAZA [LAWS(ALL)-2018-11-189] [REFERRED TO]
MULTICON BUILDERS VS. SUMANDEVI [LAWS(BOM)-2014-9-189] [REFERRED TO]
NAGNATH JAGANNATH LOMTE VS. NARSHING SAMBHAI MORE [LAWS(BOM)-2009-1-12] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMALA DEVI VS. DHIAN SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2010-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY PRAKASH JARATH VS. TEJ PRAKASH JARATH [LAWS(SC)-2016-3-31] [REFERRED TO]
M SHRAVAN KUMAR AND R ASHOK KUMAR BANSALI VS. RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED [LAWS(KAR)-2010-12-15] [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD VS. DOSTMOHMED SULEMANBHAI KOCHALIA [LAWS(GJH)-2018-9-334] [REFERRED TO]
BASANTA BEHERA AND OTHERS VS. MENAKABALA BEHERA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2019-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
INDUMATI SAHU VS. SECRETARY, ROTARY CLUB, PURI [LAWS(ORI)-2017-2-30] [REFERRED TO]
ALI HUSSAIN VS. SHABBIR HUSSAIN [LAWS(MPH)-2014-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
GAYATHRI WOMENS WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. GOWRAMMA [LAWS(SC)-2011-1-58] [REFERRED TO]
MUNI SINGH VS. LAXMI RAI [LAWS(SC)-2014-11-92] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY SHANKAR SHARMA VS. RAJENDRA PRASAD [LAWS(CHH)-2018-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
GURUDATTA S/O GULABRAO WAGHMARE VS. RAMBHAU [LAWS(BOM)-2011-2-171] [REFERRED TO]
SKYHAWK EDUCATIONAL AND WELFARE SOCIETY VS. DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION [LAWS(DLH)-2012-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH KUMAR S/O BANSI LAL VS. SUMAN SHARMA D/O SH BANSI LAL & OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-11-189] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ RATAN CHHANGANI VS. KISHAN LAL [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-10-49] [REFERRED TO]
PULIKKIPOYIL SALSAMATH USMAN, W/O. LATE USMAN @ MUJEEB, AGED 30 YEARS, KIZHAKKOTHU VILLAGE, ELATTIL DESOM, KOZHIKKODE VS. PULIKKIPOYIL MOIDEEN KUNHI, S/O. AYAMMEDI, AGED 60 YEARS, KIZHAKKOTHU VILLAGE, ELATTIL DESOM, KOZHIKKODE [LAWS(KER)-2016-9-109] [REFERRED TO]
N S SHANMUGANATHAN (DIED) VS. SAMPOORNAM [LAWS(MAD)-2018-10-127] [REFERRED TO]
GULZARILAL JAIN VS. RAVIKANT SHIRKE [LAWS(MPH)-2010-9-15] [REFERRED TO]
HAREKRUSHNA GIRI AND ANOTHER VS. ANNAPURNA DAS AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2017-4-81] [REFERRED TO]
KHETRAMOHAN TRIPATHY AND ORS. VS. BASUDEV ACHARYA [LAWS(ORI)-2015-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
MARUTI LAXMAN ZHIPARE VS. RAHUL ARJUN SARANG [LAWS(BOM)-2008-2-191] [REFERRED TO]
BIRBAL VS. NAND KUMAR [LAWS(ALL)-2007-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
M SREERAMULU VS. P MOHAMMED HUSSAIN [LAWS(APH)-2007-9-124] [REFERRED TO]
KUSUM JAIN VS. VINAY KUMAR AGARWALLA [LAWS(CAL)-2012-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
WING CRD SURENDRA AGNIHOTRI VS. MOTI RAM JAIN [LAWS(ALL)-2018-5-805] [REFERRED TO]
SHINGARA SINGH VS. JOGINDER SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2014-2-495] [REFERRED TO]
COUNTER CLAIM RAISED LOMATE VS. NARSINGH JAGANNATH MORE [LAWS(BOM)-2009-1-79] [REFERRED TO]
NIRMALENDU MISHRA VS. SWAPAN RAJ [LAWS(CAL)-2021-8-27] [REFERRED TO]
DILIP DAGDOBA ZADBUKE VS. SADANAND ARVIND KHANDAGLE [LAWS(BOM)-2022-8-204] [REFERRED TO]
VEENA MONGA WIFE OF LATE SH. GOPAL MONGA VS. HARI MOHAN MONGA [LAWS(P&H)-2013-9-36] [REFERRED TO]
SOMA DEVI VS. KASHMIRI LAL AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2017-7-207] [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND KUMAR VS. TRILOK KUMAR [LAWS(MPH)-2024-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
NARBADESHWAR PRASAD VS. RAM KISHORE MISHRA [LAWS(JHAR)-2010-5-34] [REFERRED TO]
KUNJAN VS. PHOOLA AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2017-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI SRIHARI SUBRAI NAIK KURADE, VS. MR. LOURENCO COLACO, SON OF LATE SEBASTIAO COLACO AND MRS. SUZANA COLACO [LAWS(BOM)-2011-2-211] [REFERRED TO]
COMMUNIDADE OF PIRLA VS. GOVERNMENT OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-4-41] [REFERRED TO]
MARIA THELMA ELVIRA MENEZES E D SOUZA VS. MICHAEL LOPES [LAWS(BOM)-2017-9-176] [REFERRED TO]
MALAGA REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. VILAS PUNDALIK MALIK [LAWS(BOM)-2019-3-179] [REFERRED TO]
LEHRU LAL VS. LRS OF LATE HARI RAM [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-4-98] [REFERRED TO]
JAGJEET SINGH VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(UTN)-2011-12-40] [REFERRED TO]
WAHEED & OTHERS VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE & OTHERS [LAWS(UTN)-2011-12-134] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDEV SINGH VS. GURSEWAK SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
BAIJNATH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS VS. FIRM GWALIOR LAND DEALS AND FINANCE [LAWS(MPH)-2019-3-26] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH GUPTA VS. BHOLANATH AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2019-11-109] [REFERRED TO]
S.S. CHAITHRA VIVEK VS. S.P. RAMU AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2016-2-110] [REFERRED TO]
HEIRS OF DECD. RAVJIBHAI NATHABHAI PATEL VS. HEIRS OF DECD AMRUTBHAI PUNJABHAI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2016-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
POLYMERS INDUSTRIES VS. KIRITBHAI RATILAL SHAH [LAWS(GJH)-2010-12-257] [REFERRED TO]
N C BANERJEE AND COMPANY VS. MANOJ BALKRISHNA SHAH [LAWS(BOM)-2011-7-19] [REFERRED TO]
JAIWANT SINGH NEGI VS. MAN MOHAN SINGH [LAWS(UTN)-2010-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN LAL VS. S.L. MALOO AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2012-3-109] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Respondent No. 6 herein as the Plaintiff filed a suit T.S. No. 9 of 1996 for a declaration of his title to the suit property, for confirmation of his possession over it and if it were to be found that the plaintiff had been dispossessed from the plaint schedule property during the pendency of the suit, for the grant of a decree for recovery of possession through the process of court, for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property and for other incidental reliefs. The suit was filed against two defendants; the Divisional Forest Officer and the State of Bihar, who are respondents 1 and 2 herein. Defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement denying the claim of title and possession by the plaintiff. They pleaded that the property was vested forest having been notified as such under Section 29 of the Forest Act, 1927, which remained vested in the State; that the plaintiff had no cause of action and that the suit was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The suit went to trial. Evidence was closed. Arguments concluded. Judgement was reserved.
At that stage, certain third parties who are the appellants herein, filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming that they are in possession of properties including the suit property as owners and that they have right, title, interest and khas possession over the suit land. They submitted that their presence before the court was necessary in order to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. It is to be noted that there was no allegation that the plaintiff was attempting to interfere with their right or possession. It was only stated that they had come to know that the plaintiff had filed a suit based on some illegal and invalid documents and was proceeding with the suit speedily without impleading them. The said application was allowed by the trial court. The impleaded parties were ranked as defendants 3 to 17 in the suit.

(3.)A written statement was filed on behalf of defendants 3 to 12 disputing the claim of the plaintiff and pleading that the suit properties were held by them as descendants of one Tikait Maharaj Singh and they were in khas possession of the land. They pleaded that they were in peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property by inheritance that they and their ancestors have acquired raiyati right over a large extent of land which took in the suit land, both under law by adverse possession and under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. They reiterated that they were claiming to be in peaceful possession of the suit lands ever since the time of their ancestors. The land had not been demarcated by the forest authorities in the year 1964-65.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.