PANDIT BRAHMA NAND CHAUBEY ALIAS BAHMA NAND CHAUBEY Vs. MEMBERS OF BHOODAN COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three second appeals involve common question of law and hence have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) Whether suits challenging the donation of land (Bhoodan) and consequently asking for declaration of title and recovery of possession are governed by Section 17(4) of the Bihar Bhoodan Yajna Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), i.e., by special law of Limitation or by general law of Limitation is the solitary significant question of law that arises for our consideration.

(3.) A few facts with regard to each of the appeals need to be stated. (A) S.A. No. 27 of 1974 This appeal is by the plaintiff against the judgment of affirmance. Plaintiff appellant filed the suit (T.S. No. 185 of 1960) for declaration of title and confirmation of possession in respect of 67 decimals of land in plot No. 241 and 243 of village Marahura, P. S. Dumraon, in the district of Shaha -bad (fully described in Schedule 'Kha' of the plaint), omitting other details. In short, the plaintiff's case was that the disputed plots fell to the share of the plaintiff in a partition in his family between the plaintiff's father and his sons and grand -sons on 23.4.1956 and, according to the plaintiff, he came in cultivating possession of the land. The cause of action, according to the plaintiff, was a notice from the Land Revenue Deputy Collector to show -cause as to why he shall not be ejected from the disputed land. The plaintiff's case was that he (the plaintiff) filed objection on having received notice (Ext. 6) to show -cause but the Land Revenue Deputy Collector expressed his inability, which necessitated the filing of the suit. The plaintiff's further case was that he had no knowledge about the confirmation of the gift in favour of the Bhoodan Committee or any donation of the land. The plaintiff made members of the Bhoodan Yagna Committee and members and the Chairman of the Bhoodan Committee were the principal defendants in the suit.