HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, J. - (1.) THIS appeal, at the instance of the appellant, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.1.2000 and 14.2.2000 respectively passed in Title Suit No. 234/1993, whereby and whereunder the learned Subordinate Judge VI, Ranchi dismissed the suit. Plaintiff is appellant here.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") is that the land bearing RS Plot No. 55 under khata No. 9 of village Mohulia, PS Khelari, District Ranchi was owned and possessed by the Colonization Society of India Ltd. Macluskiganj, PS Khelari, District Ranchi, which is now in liquidation. The further case of the appellant is that he had acquired 6 acres of land in Danpatra out of plot No. 55 of khata No. 9 from the Colonization Society of India in the year 1954 -55 and came in actual possession thereof and paid rent for the same from 1954 -55. The appellant was further settled in the year 1962 -63 with 3 acres of land out of plot No. 55 of khata No. 917 of village Mohulia by way of raiyati rights by the BDO, Burmu for and on behalf of the State of Bihar and came in possession over that land since 1962 -63. The appellant has been coming in peaceful possession over the said 9 acres of land for the last 40 years and has made improvement in the lands and made it cultivable and even constructed his house, in which he has been living and giving rent to the State in all the years. It is alleged that the Forest Officer Burmu, on 5.6.1993, threatened the appellant to disposses him from the suit land and he also threatened him on various dates thereafter. The appellant gave notice on 19.6.1993 under Section 80, CPC to the Forest Officer and the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. Being afraid of the fact that he may be dispossessed from the land in question, he has instituted the suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land. The defendant No. 1 contested the suit and filed written statement taking a plea, inter alia, that the suit is not maintainable and barred by law of limitation. It is stated that the suit land was Gair - majarua and Jungle land and was recorded in R.S. and as such at the time of vesting to the State of Bihar, the suit land was free from all encumbrances and when notification under Sections 29, 30 and 31 of the Indian Forest Act were published, no objection was raised and the Forest Department remained in possession. It is further alleged that it is wrong to say that appellant acquired 6 acres of land from colonization Society of India as it had no power to make such transfers and the defendants -respondents produced the gazette notification to that effect showing the claim of the Forest Department over the suit land. It is also alleged in the written statement that BDO, Burmu had no power to settle the land with the appellant and no such settlement was made with the appellant. It was further alleged that Circle Officer had no power to mutate the land and whatever receipts had been granted, that are collusive and it is wrong to say that appellant has constructed a residential house and has improved the disputed land. It is further alleged that the appellant had made encroachment on some lands of the Forest Department, for which action under Indian Forest Act was taken and appellant has no right, title and interest over the disputed land.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3 also appeared and filed written statement stating inter alia, therein that the disputed land is a protected forest of the Forest Department and this land cannot be settled and appellant has got no possession over the disputed land. It has further been alleged that the disputed land along with other lands measuring 103.03 acres have been transferred to the Forest Department vide 8 -69/89F dated 10.2.1995 by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India through Secretary Forest, Government of Bihar and as per condition of transfer, CCI, has granted that much land for forestation for which a sum of Rs. 1, 93, 24, 944.72 paise has been paid and possession has been given to the defendant No. 3 and defendant No. 3 is in possession over the said land.;