( 2025:JHHC:33872 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Second Appeal No. 388 of 2017 1. Dhobi Mahto son of late Gurucharan Mahto 2. Bithal Mahto, son of Panchu Mahto 3. Budhan Mahto, son of Panchu Mahto 4. Kedar Mahto, son of Panchu Mahto 5. Jawahir Mahto, son of Chhathu Mahto 6. Jugesh Mahto, son of Chhathu Mahto 7. Umesh Mahto, son of Chhathu Mahto 8. Kailu Mahto, son of Chhathu Mahto All resident of village-Jorakaram, P.O.-Hiring, Police Station- Hunterganj, District-Chatra … Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand represented through Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, P.O.+P.S. & District-Chatra 2. D.F.O., Forest Department Chatra, North Division Chatra, P.O. P.S. and District-Chatra 3. Range Officer, Hunterganj, P.O.+P.S.-Hunterganj, District-Chatra 4. Beat Officer, Hunterganj Beyas Upadhyay, P.O.+P.S.-Hunterganj, District-Chatra 5. Sub Beat Guard (Sub beat Jorakaram, P.O. & P.S. Hunterganj, District-Chatra … Defendants/Respondents/Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, G.P. III : Mr. Mukul Kumar Singh, A.C. to G.P. III --- 19/12.11.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 09.05.2017 (decree signed on 24.05.2017) passed by learned District Judge, I, Chatra dismissing the Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2008 and affirming the judgment dated 29.05.2008 (decrees signed on 05.06.2008) passed by learned Sub Judge I Chatra in Title Suit No. 14 of 2003 whereby the learned Sub Judge had dismissed the title suit. 3. The plaintiffs have lost in both the courts and they are in second appeal before this court. 4. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for the following reliefs:- (a) Cost of the suit be declared. (b) That the Settlement of the land be declared valid and legal. ( 2025:JHHC:33872 ) 2 (c) That the Notification of the Suit land under Sections 29/30/31 be declared in-operative and illegal. (d) That the suit land be declared as it is not under the Forest demarcation (e) That the permanent injunction for the suit land be passed (f) That any other relief or reliefs deems fit to be decreed. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the judgment passed by both the courts are perverse and hence a substantial question of law is required to be framed. He has submitted that the learned courts have not properly considered the Hukumnama issued by the ex-jamindar (exhibit-14), rent receipts issued by the ex- jamindar (exhibit-1/c), pleader’s commissioners report (exhibit-10) and the map appended to pleader commissioner’s report (exhibit-11) and register-II (exhibit-6). 6. The learned counsel has submitted that the plaintiffs are claiming title over the suit property on the basis of Hukumnama and rent receipts was also issued by the ex-landlord. He has further submitted that the name of the plaintiffs was also mentioned in Register-II which was entered upon abolition of Jamindari on 01.03.1955 and the government rent receipts are 1/b and 1/b to 1/h. He has submitted that even the pleader commissioner had submitted a report showing that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property. He further submitted that the plaintiffs have continued to be in possession and they are still in possession of the suit property and no proceeding has been initiated to evict the plaintiffs so far. 7. The learned counsel has further submitted that the plaintiffs are claiming a portion of plot no. 55 whose total area was 375 and they were claiming only 61.25 acres. The learned counsel has submitted that the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the settlement of land through Hukumnama in their favour was valid but the aforesaid aspects of the matter has not been properly considered and therefore the impugned judgments are perverse. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants this court finds that the plaintiffs had sought for a declaration of settlement of ( 2025:JHHC:33872 ) 3 land in their favour with respect to the suit land as valid and also sought a declaration that the Notification under section 29, 30 and 31 of the Indian Forest Act is illegal and in-operative and sought a permanent injunction with respect to the suit property. 9. The specific case of the plaintiffs was that the suit property was settled by the ex-jamindar through Hukumnama dated 22.01.1941 and rent receipts was also issued by the ex-jamindar which was subsequently followed by the rent receipts issued by the State as the demand was opened in the name of the ancestor of the plaintiffs namely Panchu Mahto in Register-II on 31.03.1955. 10. This court finds that the defendants contested the suit and claimed that the property was declared forest under the provisions of Section 29 and 30 of the Indian Forest Act and that the suit property vested in the then State of Bihar way back in the year 1953 vide Notification issued in the year 1952-53. It was their case that the land of plot No. 55 area 61.25 acres which was a suit property was acquired by the Forest Department by virtue of the said notification and therefore the property belongs to the Forest Department and the Forest Department had planted trees over the property and the property was still in the possession of the Forest department. The issuance of Hukumnama and the claim of the plaintiffs was denied by the defendants. 11. The learned Trial Court framed the following issues for consideration: - (i) Whether the suit is maintainable as framed? (ii) Whether plaintiffs have any cause of action of the suit? (iii) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation, waiver, estoppel, acquiescence and adverse possession? (iv) Whether the suit is hit under the provision of Specific Relief Act? (v) Whether plaintiffs have any subsisting raiyati right over the suit land? (vi) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to any other relief or reliefs? ( 2025:JHHC:33872 ) 4 12. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidences. The learned trial court was of the view that the issue no. (v) was the most important issue in the matter as to whether the plaintiffs have any raiyati right over the suit property. The learned court recorded that the plaintiffs were claiming title through hukumnama dated 22.01.1941 and jamindari rent receipts which was marked as exhibit-14 and 1/c respectively. The learned court recorded that upon perusal of the Hukumnama, the year was shown as Samvat 2000 which corresponds to year 1943 A.D. and the jamindari rent receipt is dated 15.10.1941. The learned court recorded that there is vital contradiction in connection with the date of issuance of Hukumnama and jamindari rent receipts and Jamindari rent receipt was prior to the issuance of Hukumnama. The court recorded that the document Exhibit 14 and 1/c produced by the plaintiffs came under cloud. 13. The court further recorded that the Hukumnama is an un- registered document and the year of issuance of Hukumnama does not tally with the year of issuance of jamindari rent receipts and thereafter considering the notification, exhibit-B, with respect to the suit land which was issued by the governor of Bihar in the year 1953 declaring the suit land as protected forest under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act. The learned court also recorded that the plaintiffs had approached the SDM and claimed that they got the land through government purcha. But the plaintiffs had not whispered a word with regard to issuance of government purcha in the pleadings. The learned court recorded that the plaintiffs have changed their stand before the court and also changed the basis of their claim with respect to the suit property. 14. The court recorded that the land was gair majarua khas of ex- land lord before the coming into force of Bihar Land Reforms Act and therefore the suit vested in the State of Bihar and the plaintiffs have failed to establish and prove that the land in suit was validly settled to them in the year 1941. The learned court referred to exhibit-B which is the notification and was of the view that the notification could not be disbelieved or any score. ( 2025:JHHC:33872 ) 5 15. The court also considered that the land was physically examined by Advocate Commissioner who had submitted a report exhibit-10. According to him 61.25 acres of land was in possession of the plaintiffs and he found house, trees and well situated thereon. The court was of the view that it is well settled principle of law that an entry without an authority of law is nullity and the person cannot claim his right, title and interest on such basis. The court was of the view that since the basis of the claim of the plaintiffs was under cloud, the pleader commissioner’s report was of no help to the plaintiffs and also observed that documentary evidence would exclude the oral evidence. 16. The learned court ultimately held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove and establish their claim with respect to the land by way of settlement through hukumnama in their favour in the year 1941 and held that the plaintiffs had no subsisting right, title and interest over the land and decided the core issue i.e. Issue no. 5 against the plaintiffs. 17. Issue no. 3 was with regard to legality and validity of the declaration under Section 29,30 and 31 of the Indian Forest Act. The same was also decided against the plaintiffs. The learned court recorded that the plaintiffs had not claimed right, title and interest on the basis of adverse possession. Ultimately, the learned court dismissed the suit primarily on the ground that the plaintiffs have not been able to prove their title over the suit property. 18. The learned 1st appellate court has also considered the materials on record and has recorded concurrent findings with regard to the suit property and ultimately dismissed the appeal. The court has formulated the point in paragraph 9 that the only question which emerge was as to whether the judgment of the trial court was justified, legal and sustainable. The learned court recorded the findings as under:- “ On scanning of anatomy of entire record, it is limpid that the suit land was recorded as G.M Khas land in possession of the ex-landlord in cadestral survey settlement. Admittedly the Hukumnama has been formally proved as ( 2025:JHHC:33872 ) 6 Exhibit. 14 which is in kaithi script but its transliterated typed copy has been filed by the plaintiffs. A glance at Exhibit. 14 (Hukumnama) reveals that this is an unregistered and unstamped document written on printed form issued by Manager Ramgarh estate in on 22.01.43 but, the plaintiffs have not mentioned the name of the then ex-landlord in the plaint. Besides that, the Hukumnama (Exhibit. 14) is damaged, torn, fainted and illegible. It also bears over writings. It further reveals that this document has been issued in Samwat 2000 which corresponds to 1943 AD but the date of grant of said Hukumnama was mentioned 22.01.41 in the plaint which was subsequently amended as 22.01.43 during appeal vide order dated 28.11.15. Exhibit. 1/C, reveals that the Zamindari rent receipts issued by Ramgarh Raj has been issued to Panchu Mahto and others on 15.10.41. P.W.8 who is one of the plaintiffs has stated that his ancestor had acquired the suit land from ex-landlord through Hukumanama dated 22.01.41. Certainly, this portion of statement of witness regarding date of issuance of Hukumnama cannot be amended. However, if the date of grant of Hukumnama as amended in the plaint as 22.01.43 is taken to be true, then the statement of the plaintiff himself belies this fact. Apart that the date of grant of Hukumnama (Exhibit. 14) does not tally with the Zamindari rent receipt (Exhibit. 1/C). Therefore, both the documents i.e Exhibit. 14 and Exhibit.1/C produced by the plaintiffs are contradictory to each other and hence, they cannot be said valid and genuine documents.” 19. This court finds that the learned courts have given concurrent findings and the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title with respect to the suit property on the basis of un-registered Hukumnama and jamindari rent receipts. Since the plaintiffs have failed to prove their title with respect to the suit property and there are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts after considering the materials on record , this court finds no substantial question of law is involved in this case and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. 20. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. ( 2025:JHHC:33872 ) 7 21. Let this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 12/11/2025 Uploaded on 21/11/2025 Binit