RAJESH KUMAR, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Rahul Kr. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Amit Kr. Das, learned counsel for the respondent- Tata Steel and Mr. Satish Kumar, JC to GA.
(2.) The Title Suit No. 75 of 1997 has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent- appellant for declaration that land describe in Schedule A, B and C belongs to the plaintiff as occupancy rayait and the record of rights prepared with respect to Schedule-B and C is wrong and erroneous. Further prayer has been made for confirmation of possession of the plaintiff over the schedule lands and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff in Schedule-C lands as well as the cost of litigation.
(3.) As per the claim of the plaintiff, agricultural land of 55 bighas equivalent to 22.27 acres situated at Mauza Dimna under Ward No. 10 has been settled in favour of the plaintiff by authorized Tahsildar of ex-mokoraridar for agricultural purpose in the year 1937. For the said purpose, Rs. 137 has been fixed as salami with annual rent of Rs. 6/- for the purpose of cultivation of paddy therein and since 1937, the plaintiff is in possession of the said land exercising his raiyati rights.;