Narendra Nath Tiwarl, J. - (1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal against the concurrent findings and judgments of learned courts below.
(2.) THE plaintiff had filed suit in the court of Subordinate Judge, Jamshedpur, praying for declaration of his right title and confirmation of possession of the suit plot, described in Schedule -A and B of the plaint and or permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and making construction over the suit and. Briefly stated, the plaintiff's case was, that the land of Survey Plot Nos. 2099 and 2103, appertaining to Khata No. 19 of Mouza Sakchi, was recorded in the name of two brothers, namely, Muchi Gour and Padu Gour, sons of Late Pisto Gour as Dhani (Agricultural) land. The said recorded tenants had been In continuous, possession till their death, Padu Gour died leaving behind his son - the plaintiff. Muchi Gour also died leaving his legal heirs. The plaintiff and the successors of Late Muchi Gour came in peaceful possession of the suit land. The plaintiff, thereafter, constructed a Khaparposh residential house in a portion of the suit land and remaining portion of land is in continuous possession of the plaintiff and the successors of Muchi Gour. The defendant -company was the ex -landlord. The plaintiff's predecessor -in -interest held the land as occupancy raiyat under the defendant. After coming into force of the Bihar. Land Reforms Act, 1950, the said land vested In the State of Bihar and the plaintiff became the tenant under the State of Bihar. The plaintiff's name was recorded in the revenue register as tenant and since thereafter he had been paying rent to the State of Bihar. The defendant company produces iron and steel. It has Influence in the area and on that strength, the Company has been capturing tenant's raiyati land forcibly. The Company has no manner of right, title over the suit land. In November, 1991, the official of the Company came over the suit land and tried to forcibly capture a portion of the suit land. The appellant filed writ petition, being CWJC No. 912 of 1991 in the High Court. Looking to the nature of the claims made in the petition, the same was not entertained and the plaintiff was permitted to withdraw the writ petition to file suit, In the meanwhile, the Company again tried to forcibly occupy the portion of the land, which was resisted by the plaintiff. The said dispute led to a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jamshedpur. He said proceeding was subsequently converted into a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. The said proceeding was decided against the plaintiff, against which he filed revision and also filed his suit for the reliefs as aforesaid.
(3.) THE suit was contested by the defendant -company. The claim of the company, inter alia, was that the suit Plot No. 2099, measuring an area of 1.92 acres, and Plot No. 2103, measuring an area 2,25 acres, were recorded in the name of Muchi Gour and Padu Gour in R.S. Record of Right in the year 1937. The defendant had got possession over 038 acres of land of R.S. Plot No. 2103 in T.A. Misc. No. 1 of 1936 -37 and T.A. Misc. No. 7 of 1943 -44. Out of total area of 4,17 acres, 22 acres of land was repossessed by the company by virtue of the said T.A, Miscellaneous cases and the remaining portion of land i.e. 2,95 acres were surrendered by the recorded tenants, namely, Muchi Gour and Padu Gour in favour of the defendant company by virtue of registered deed of surrender dated 1 July, 1942, Since thereafter the land is in continuous possession of the defendant. Formerly, the defendant was the landlord of the suit land, but after coming into force of land reforms legislation, the suit land vested in the State of Bihar. Subsequently by virtue of a deed of lease dated 1 August, 1985, the defendant got the said land from the State of Bihar on lease and has been paying rent in respect of the said land. On the basis of the said document, the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was decided in favour of the defendant.;