AMITAV K.GUPTA,J. - (1.) This first appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2001 and 18.04.2001 respectively passed in Title Suit No. 56/1996 by Sub-JUDGE-III, Ranchi whereby the suit of the plaintiff was decreed with the finding that the suit property situated over plot nos. 1676 and 1675 within Ward No. 7 of Ranchi Municipality is not a government land within the meaning of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956 or under the provision of any other Act and declaring the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the suit property.
(2.) The brief fact of the case is that the aforementioned suit property was recorded in the name of Shyam Kishan Sahay having an area of 20485 karies with house structures at Circular Road, Ranchi and his name was recorded in the municipal record of right published in 1929. That the said Shyam Kishan Sahay by registered deed of sale dated 18.07.1941 sold and transferred 4 bighas 10 kathas (i.e. 90 kathas) of the land along with the building and other structure to Panna Lal Modi who subsequently sold and transferred the said land to M/s. Modi and Sons(P) Ltd. by registered sale deed dated 16.09.1950. That the name of Modi and Sons(P) Ltd. was recorded in Register II maintained by the then State of Bihar and accordingly rent was realised by the State from the Company. That M/s. Modi and Sons(P), Ltd., sold the suit property to the plaintiff by registered sale deed dated 18.01.1961 and the plaintiff came in possession of the same as the owner of the suit property. The plaintiff invested substantial money by installing machinery's for establishment of the foundry. It is stated that by a registered deed of exchange dated 24.03.1976 D.K.Sahay, S/o late S.K. Sahay, in lieu of M.S.Plot No. 1480 in Ward no. VII of Ranchi Municipality exchanged 6 kathas, 10 chataks of M.S.Plot No. 1675 and the plaintiff came in possession over the said land. That the plaintiff could not get its name mutated in the Government Revenue Record but it kept paying the rent to the State of Bihar in the name of erstwhile owner, namely, M/s. Modi and Sons(P), Ltd. It is pleaded that the land was never acquired by the government in any form either for public purpose or by forfeiture neither it came in possession of the Government by acquisition or by resumption from the zamindar for performance of police duty. That the government never claimed the land as being Khas Mahal property and the owners of the land were not called upon to execute any kind of document in favour of the government. That the original owner of the property and all subsequent transferees remained in possession of the property as absolute owner thereof, in open assertion of their hostile title to the full knowledge of all concerned and perfected their title by adverse possession. That the plaintiff has also got its name mutated in the office of Ranchi Municipal Corporation and has been paying property tax for the same. On the above grounds it is stated that there is no record to show that the land was ever recorded as Khas Mahal property or lease hold property. That since it was not a Khas Mahal property the owners were not required to obtain any permission when the land was transferred from the original owner to the purchaser and subsequently to the plaintiff. That the government had tried to take forcible possession of the land together with the building, office room and plant and when it was resisted and protested by the public the defendant was compelled to desist from such act. That for restraining the defendants, the plaintiff filed writ application in the High Court being CWJC No. 2372 of 1992(R) and the High Court vide order dated 11.11.1992 directed the parties to seek the remedy before the appropriate court where after notice under Section 80 C.P.C was issued upon the Collector but no reply was received consequently the suit was instituted against the defendants.
(3.) The respondent-State filed their written statement challenging the maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation stating that it is barred under section 34 of the Specific Relief Act and non-payment of the requisite court fees as well as non-service of notice mandated under Section 80 C.P.C. They denied that Late S.K. Sahay was the absolute owner and since he was not the absolute owner he had no right to transfer the property to the plaintiff. That the lands are Khas Mahal land surveyed in 1941 and all the transfers have been made against the provision of law and is not binding upon the respondent-State. The aforementioned suit property has not been mutated in the name of the plaintiff. That the plaintiff has not paid rent for the land. M/s. Modi and Sons(P) Ltd. had managed to get its name mutated by suppressing the material facts but, thereafter no rent is being realised as the holding has been shown as lease hold lands and the story of exchange of land of Plot No. 1480 is misleading and collusive. That during 1940-41 the land has been shown as Khas Mahal plot No. 119 and zamabandi 44 of village Konka, P.S. within the district Ranchi. The occupier are the lessees and they are required to execute the deed of lease as per government circular in the prescribed forms. It is stated that the land was within the Barkagarh Estate and the same was later on forfeited by the government and became Khas Mahal land.;