2025:JHHC:16982 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S.A. No. 361 of 2016 1. Usha Devi, wife of Late Ramavtar Pansi, Resident of village- Tobacco, Gola, Chatra, P.O. & P.S.- Chatra, District- Chatra 2. Mostt. Karmi Devi, wife of Late Pandika Oraon, Resident of - Village – Sidpa, P.S.- Tandwa, P.O. Tandwa, District – Chatra. 3. Kawleshwar Oraon, son of late Pandika Oraon; 4. Pratibha Devi, wife of Basukinath Pathak, both resident of- Awwal Mohalla, Chatra, P.O. and P.S.- Chatra, District- Chatra 5. Basukinath Pathak, son of Late Kedarnath Pathak, resident of- Awwal Mohalla, Chatra, P.O. and P.S. - Chatra, District- Chatra … … Defendants/Appellants/Appellants -Versus- 1. Mohd. Ekram, son of Late Mohd. Ishaque, Resident of- Village- Khanka, Masjid Road, Chatra, P.O. & P.S.- Chatra, District- Chatra 2. Md. Asfaque, son of Late Md. Ishaque, Resident of- Village- Khanka, Masjid Road, Chatra, P.O. & P.S.- Chatra, District Chatra 3. Md. Islam, son of Late Md. Ishaque, Resident of- village- Khanka, Masjid Road, Chatra, P.O. & P.S.- Chatra, District- Chatra 4. Asgari Khatoon, wife of Md. Jalil, Resident of – village- Khanka, Masjid Road, Chatra, P.O. & P.S. - Chatra, District - Chatra 5. Ajmeri Khatoon, wife of Md. Jalal, Resident of- village -Darhu, P.O. and P.S. Balumath, District Latehar 6. Firdausi Khatoon, wife of Md. Ekram Miyan, Resident of- Village - Anjuman Nagar, Sahebganj, P.O. & P.S.- Sahebganj, District- Sahebganj 7. Osama, son of Md. Ataullah (deleted vide order dated 20.01.2017) 8. Jiyaul, son of Md. Ataullah, Resident of – village- Islam Nagar, P.O. & P.S.- Chatra, District- Chatra 9. Salman, son of Md. Ataullah, Resident of- village - Islam Nagar, P.O. & P.S.- Chatra, District- Chatra 10. Md. Yahiya, son of Late Enayat Miyan, resident of Bind Mohalla, P.O. & P.S. - Chatra, District- Chatra, Jharkhand 11. Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, P.O. & P.S.- Chatra, District - Chatra 12. Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra, P.O. & P.S.- Chatra, District- Chatra 13. Circle Officer, Chatra, P.O. & P.S.- Chatra, District- Chatra … … Plaintiffs/Respondents/Respondents --- 2025:JHHC:16982 2 CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Sudhir Kr. Sharma, Advocate : Mr. Shashi Kumar Sharma, Advocate : Mr. Harshit Pradhan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Krishna Kr. Bhatt, AC to SC-I For Private Respondents : Mr. Munna Lal Yadav, Advocate : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate --- 17/26th June 2025 1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment dated 27.06.2016 (decree sealed and signed on 11.07.2016) passed by the learned District Judge-I, Chatra in Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2010 whereby the learned 1st appellate court has confirmed the judgment dated 15.12.2009 (decree sealed and signed on 07.01.2010) passed in Title Suit No. 10 of 1999 by the learned Subordinate Judge-I, Chatra. 2. This second appeal was admitted for final hearing vide order dated 02.08.2023 after framing the following substantial questions of law: - 1. Whether learned First Appellate Court committed perversity, as though vide order dated 03.12.2015, in the Civil Appeal no. 05 of 2010, it was ordered by the learned First Appellate court that the petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, shall be decided at the time of pronouncing the judgment but neither took into consideration the Khewat, which was sought to be introduced as an additional evidence by the appellants – defendants nor rejected the said petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC? 2. Whether both the courts below have committed perversity by holding that the Exhibit C is not a valid document, as the settlement by vide Ext. C, has not been made by the SDO, Chatra who, according to the courts below, was the competent authority to settle the lands to landless persons? 3. Whether both the courts below committed perversity by holding that the Demand Register-II, marked Exhibit A and A1, do not contain the reference of Exhibit C, which 2025:JHHC:16982 3 is the original copy of the purcha of the Settlement Case No. 09 / 1984-85? Arguments of the appellants. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants, while referring to the 1st substantial question of law, has referred to the order dated 03.12.2015 passed by the learned 1st appellate court to submit that the same is in relation to additional evidence filed under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC. He submits that after detailed discussion, the learned 1st appellate court has recorded that clause (a) of Rule 27(1) of CPC was not applicable and as far as clause (b) of Rule 27(1) of CPC is concerned, the stage had not reached as to whether the document is required for just decision of the case or for any substantial cause and therefore, an observation was made that the petition would be decided at the time of pronouncement of judgment. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in the entire judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court, there is no consideration of the additional evidence. Neither the same has been taken into consideration nor the petition has been rejected. 5. The learned counsel submits that the aforesaid omission has a serious bearing in the matter in view of the fact that the plaintiffs were claiming the property through Hukumnama executed by a person other than the Khewatdar and the Khewat was sought to be brought on record by way of additional evidence to show that the person who was claimed to have issued Hukumnama to the plaintiffs did not have the right to issue Hukumnama as he was not the Khewatdar. The learned counsel submits that the khewat was in fact required to be brought on record by the plaintiffs to show that the person from whom the plaintiffs were claiming through Hukumnama was the ex-zamindar or the khewatdar of the property, but the khewat was brought by way of additional evidence by the defendants at 1st appellate stage. It is submitted that if the plaintiffs had purchased the property or share of the Khewatdar, then also it was 2025:JHHC:16982 4 required to be proved by the plaintiffs to claim title over the property. However, the additional evidence was sought to be produced by the defendants which has not been considered. He has submitted that in view of aforesaid aspect of the matter, the 1st substantial question of law be answered in favour of the appellants and consequently, the matter be remanded to the court concerned for fresh adjudication. 6. With respect to the 2nd substantial question of law, the learned counsel submits that both the learned courts have committed perversity by entering into the issue as to whether the SDO had the jurisdiction to settle the property in favour of the defendants, inasmuch as, no such specific issue was framed by the learned trial court or even by the learned 1st appellate court. He has also submitted that there was no occasion to frame such an issue as the specific case of the plaintiffs was that the property is the raiyati land of the plaintiffs and therefore the State or its authorities do not have any jurisdiction to settle the land to anybody else. The learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that the fact as to whether the Circle Officer/LRDC had the jurisdiction to grant parcha or not at the relevant point of time is essentially a question of fact and the power is governed by circulars issued by the government from time to time and since no specific issue was framed with respect to the power of SDO or power of the Circle Officer or LRDC in view of the stand taken by the plaintiffs that the property being the raiyati property of the plaintiffs, it cannot be settled by any of the authorities of the State, the finding with regard to exclusive power of SDO to issue settlement parcha ( Exhibit-C) is itself perverse. He submits that since the parties did not join issue regarding power /jurisdiction of SDO to issue settlement parcha (Exhibit- C) on behalf of the State, the defendants also did not adduce evidence to substantiate the power of SDO to issue settlement parcha (Exhibit-C) and the defendants asserted that the property was not the raiyati land of plaintiffs and hence could be settled by the State in favour of defendants. 2025:JHHC:16982 5 7. The learned counsel submits that accordingly the 2nd substantial question of law be also answered in favour of the appellants. 8. So far as 3rd substantial question of law is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that Exhibit-A to A/5 were the rent receipts and Exhibit-A1 was the certified copy of the Register-II. He has submitted that in the substantial question of law though exhibit-A and A1 has been referred to as demand register, but exhibit-A is the rent receipt and exhibit-A1 is the demand register-II. He has referred to Exhibit-A1 to submit that Exhibit-A1 clearly refers to the Settlement Case No. 9/84-85 which was the proceeded by issuance of parcha in favour of the defendants. The learned counsel submits that the parcha has been exhibited as exhibit-C and it contains the description of the suit land and also gives the Settlement Case No. 9/84-85 and it is signed by the Circle Officer and also signed by the Land Reform Deputy Collector. The learned counsel submits that the parcha (Exhibit-C) and Register-II (Exhibit-A1) has co-relation with each other as in both the documents, the Settlement Case No. 9/84-85 has been mentioned and therefore, exhibit- A1 was clearly relatable to the parcha (Exhibit-C). The learned counsel has further submitted that so far as Exhibit-A is concerned, there was no need to make any reference to Exhibit-C in view of the fact that exhibit-A was the rent receipt and exhibit-A referred to the description of property and issuance of rent receipt, which tallied with the parcha. The learned counsel submits that the 3rd substantial question of law be also answered in favor of the appellants. Arguments of the respondents. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that there are concurrent findings of both the courts and every aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration by both the courts and the impugned judgments do not call for any interference and all the substantial questions of law are fit to be answered against the appellants. 2025:JHHC:16982 6 10. However, during the course of argument, the learned counsel for the respondents is not able to point out any finding or any discussion by the learned 1st appellate court with regard to the additional evidence which was sought to be adduced on behalf of the defendants by filing a petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC. 11. With respect to 2nd substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that since the defendants were relying upon the parcha, therefore, it was for the defendants to prove that the parcha was validly issued and no evidence was produced on behalf of the defendants to show that the Circle Officer or LRDC had the jurisdiction to issue parcha and therefore issuance of parcha by itself is a void document. The learned counsel has further submitted that jamabandi was running in the name of the plaintiffs and therefore there was no occasion to issue parcha and open jamabandi in the name of the defendants. He has submitted that the State authorities had committed error in opening jamabandi in the name of the defendants and therefore 2nd substantial question of law is fit to be answered in favour of the respondents and against the appellants. He has submitted that if it is ultimately found that Exhibit-C was wrongly issued, the entire right of the defendants based on settlement (Exhibit-C) would be nullified. 12. During the course of arguments, it transpired that the plaintiffs had taken a specific stand before the learned trial court that since the property was the raiyati property of the plaintiffs, therefore the State authorities or the Circle Officer had no jurisdiction to issue parcha in favor of the defendants as settlement can be issued only in case of government land and no settlement can be issued with respect to raiyati lands and thus, jurisdiction or power of one or the other authority of the State in particular to issue parcha ( Exhibit-C) was not under challenge. 13. With respect to the 3rd substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute that exhibit-A is the rent receipt and exhibit-A1 is the demand register-II and in the 2025:JHHC:16982 7 demand register-II, there is a reference of settlement Case No. 9/84-85 and the settlement parcha (Exhibit-C) also contains the reference of Settlement Case No. 9/84-85. Findings of this Court 14. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the suit was filed by two plaintiffs and the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were the State of Bihar represented through Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra and the Anchal Adhikari, Chartra respectively. The defendant Nos. 4 to 8 were private persons. The suit was filed seeking a declaration that the plaintiffs have got subsisting right, title, interest and possession over the Schedule-A of the plaint and if found dispossessed from any portion of the suit land, they be put in possession over such portion of the suit land. A further relief was sought seeking a direction upon the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 to remove their illegal construction and a relief was also sought that the Anchal Adhikari or State of Bihar had no right to settle the suit land to defendant No. 4 nor the defendant No. 4 was entitled to transfer the same to defendant Nos. 5 and 7 who have no right, title and interest over their respective land detailed and described in Schedule-B and C of the plaint. 15. Schedule-A of the land consisted of Khata No. 74, plot No. 452 having area 1.51 acre which was said to be raiyati lands of the plaintiffs which was allegedly settled with defendant No. 4 (Usha Devi, w/o Ramavtar Pansi). Schedule-B of the property was the part of Schedule-A property which was sold by defendant No. 4 to defendant No. 5 to the extent of 0.08 acre out of 1.51 acres. Schedule-C was the property sold by defendant No. 4 to defendant No. 7 to the extent of 0.08 acre out of 1.51 acre, which was also found a part of Schedule-A property. 16. The case of the plaintiffs was that the father of the plaintiffs settled 7.14 acres of land within Khata No. 74 of village Kathautiya in the District of Chatra [previously under the District of Hazaribag] including the suit land of plot No. 452 area 1.51 acre by virtue of Hukumnama in 2025:JHHC:16982 8 Sambat 1994 from the ex-landlords, namely, Suraj Narayan Singh, Chandra Narayan Singh, Tara Narayan Singh. The father of the plaintiffs took another settlement of 7.63 acres of land by another Hukumnama of Sambat 1993 in the same village. Since the date of settlement, the father of the plaintiffs came in possession of the settled lands and after death of the father of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs inherited the entire property and consequently the plaintiffs were in exclusive owner and possession of entire 7.14 acres of land as well as aforesaid 7.63 acres of land through two separate aforesaid Hukumnamas and zamindari rent receipts were also issued and annual rent was being regularly paid by them to the State of Bihar separately by their father and after his death by the plaintiffs. It is their further case that in need of money, the plaintiffs sold some portion of the lands out of the settled lands to different purchasers and the purchasers are in possession of the property and they got their name mutated in the Circle Office and were paying rent to the State of Bihar. 17. It was the case of the plaintiffs that on 09.04.1993, defendant No. 6 began to lay down foundation on portion of suit Plot No. 452 which was the paternal land of the plaintiffs and ultimately there was a breach of peace and a proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. was initiated with respect to the entire suit property against the defendant No. 6 only and during the proceeding under Section 144 of Cr.P.C. defendant No. 6 produced the parcha for the entire 1.51 acres of Plot No. 452 issued in the name of defendant No. 4 (Usha Devi) who in turn on 11.02.1993 sold a portion of the property to the extent of 0.08 acre to defendant No. 5 and another portion of the property to the mother of defendant No. 6. After a few more proceeding, it came to light from the report of the police that the defendant No. 7 Pratibha Devi was residing over the property. The defendant No. 8 is the husband of defendant No. 7. 18. It was the specific case of the plaintiffs in paragraph 13 of the plaint that neither the Anchal Adhikari nor any official of the State of Bihar had any right to settle the raiyati land of the plaintiffs with anyone in view of 2025:JHHC:16982 9 the realization of rent pertaining to land comprising in both the Hukumnamas which included the suit land nor the alleged settllee defendant No. 4 acquired any right, title, interest and possession with respect to the land nor she could convey any right, title and interest to defendant Nos. 5 and 7. A further statement was made in paragraph 16 of the plaint that Anchal Adhikari had no right to settle the land to any other person including defendant No. 4 and ultimately notice under Section 80 of CPC was issued and having no reply, the suit was filed. 19. The case of the plaintiffs clearly reveals that the plaintiffs claim right, title, interest and possession over the suit property by virtue of two Hukumnamas and they claimed that it is their raiyati land in connection with which they were also paying rent to the State and therefore the raiyati property of the plaintiffs could not be settled with defendant No. 4 and consequently any sale executed by defendant No. 4 was of no consequence. On the ground that the suit property is a raiyati property of the plaintiffs, the settlement made in favour of defendant No. 4 was under challenge and a specific prayer was made in the suit that it be declared that the Anchal Adhikari or the State of Bihar had no right to settle the suit land to defendant No. 4 nor the defendant No. 4 is entitled to transfer the same to defendant Nos. 5 and 7 who did not acquire any right, title, interest and possession over Schedule-B and Schedule-C property. 20. The records of the case reveal that though the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 had filed written statement but the same was not accepted by the learned court as it was filed beyond the prescribed period. 21. So far as private respondents are concerned, a separate written statement was filed by defendant Nos. 4, 5 and 7 wherein they claimed that after vesting, the land was that of State of Bihar and no return was ever filed by the landlord and it was their case that the plaintiffs were aware about the position of the defendants since 1980 and subsequent thereto parcha were issued in the year 1984-85 which was also within the knowledge of the plaintiffs but they did not take any legal step. It was 2025:JHHC:16982 10 their case that the defendants have been all along in possession of the suit property and the defendants were also paying rent to the State of Bihar after opening of jamabandi in their favour. It was their case that the State of Bihar is competent to settle the government land to landless Harizans. They completely denied the possession of the plaintiffs with regard to plot No. 452. They have given the various sale-deeds executed by defendant No. 4. It was asserted that defendant No. 6 was the son of defendant No. 5 and defendant No. 8 was the husband of defendant No. 7 and the private respondents were in possession of the property by virtue of registered sale-deeds. 22. A separate written statement was filed by the defendant Nos. 6 and 8 stating that the written statement filed by the defendant Nos. 4, 5 and 7 be treated as the written statement of defendant Nos. 6 and 8. 23. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues for consideration: - (i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs have valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Is the suit barred by law of limitation, waiver, estoppel, acquiescence and also under Section 34 of the Special Relief Act? (iv) Have the plaintiffs valid right, title and interest alongwith possession over the land in suit? (v) Whether the land in suit was vested in the State by operation of Law i.e., B.L.R. Act? (vi) Whether the State or its officials had right to settle the suit land to the defendant No. 4 and whether the defendant No. 5 and 7 acquired any right, title upon their purchased land sold by defendant no. 4. (vii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the relief/reliefs as claimed? 24. The plaintiffs examined 8 witnesses and produced numerous documentary evidences. The defendant Nos. 4, 5 and 7 also produced both oral and documentary evidences. They examined altogether 12 witnesses and filed numerous documents including certain government rent receipts 2025:JHHC:16982 11 which were marked Exhibit-A to A/5. One witness was examined on behalf of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 who produced original Register-II marked Exhibit-A1. 25. The learned trial court first took up issue No. IV as to whether the plaintiffs have any right, title, interest and possession over the suit land and interalia recorded that survey plot and khata number with regard to current plot No. 452/1 under current khata No. 74/2 area 1.51 decimal has not been mentioned in parcha (Exhibit-C); On perusal of page 71 of Register-II (Exhibit-A1), it appeared that the holding number, which corresponds to khata number, has been mentioned as 19/1 and 71/1 and on this basis, the learned trial court recorded that the plot No. 452/1 area 1.51 decimal under khata No. 74/2 which finds place in bandobasti parcha i.e. Exhibit-C has not been incorporated in Register-II on page 71 and therefore it could not be held that jamabandi with regard to plot No. 452 area 1.51 acre was running in the name of Usha Devi (defendant No. 4). It has also been recorded by the learned trial court that DW-1/a who is a government servant had admitted in paragraph 14 of his cross- examination that different pen and different ink have been used for making entry available at page No. 71 with regard to jamabandi of Usha Devi. The defendants had claimed that Hukumnamas do not disclose the khewat number and there was no evidence on record to show that zamindars, who had granted hukumnamas, were actual zamindars of that very khewat. It was also argued that non-submission of the return by the plaintiffs was fatal to the claim of the plaintiffs. 26. The learned trial court ultimately recorded in paragraph 15 that Register-II at page 71 (Exhibit-A1) showed zamabandi of defendant No. 4 through Settlement Case No. 9/84-85, but the entries shown against holding number / khata number, do not include khata No. 74/2 as mentioned in bandobasti parcha i.e. Exhibit-C. It was also held that demand running in the name of defendant No. 4 does not incorporate plot No. 452/1 area 1.51 decimal under khata number 74/2 which was 2025:JHHC:16982 12 available on the settlement parcha i.e. Exhibit-C. Ultimately it was held that no demand was running in favour of defendant No. 4 in connection with disputed plot No. 452 under khata No. 74 area 1.51 acre though bandobasti parcha (exhibit-C ) disclosed settlement of plot No. 452 area 1.51 decimal under khata No. 74/2. 27. It was also recorded that Exhibit-C i.e. bandobasti parcha was bearing the signature of Circle Officer and LRDC, Chatra, but there was nothing on record to show that the land was settled to Smt. Usha Devi by the S.D.O., Chatra who was competent authority to settle the land to landless persons. It was held that Exhibit-C i.e. bandobasti parcha cannot be treated as a valid document. 28. The learned trial court also recorded that the power to settle agricultural land was vested in SDO through Revenue Department letter dated 24.10.1970 and admittedly the disputed land was neither settled by the SDO, Chatra nor he had approved the settlement made by Anchal Adhikari, Chatra and the learned trial court held that defendant No. 4 could not get any right, title and interest over the suit land through Exhibit-C i.e. settlement parcha. The learned trial court ultimately held that the plaintiffs have valid right, title and interest over the suit land and any encroachment made by the defendants on the authority of Exhibit-C i.e. settlement parcha was illegal and they are liable to remove the encroachment and accordingly decided the issue No. IV in favour of the plaintiffs. 29. Issue No. V was decided as a sequel to the decision on issue No. IV and it was held that the land in dispute was settled to the father of the plaintiffs by ex-landlord and the settlement was recognized by the State even after vesting of zamindari followed with opening of demand with regard to disputed land which finds place on page No. 6 of Register-II and held that the land in dispute did not vest with the State. It has also been recorded that due to non-filing of return, no adverse inference against the plaintiffs could be drawn and no document such as notification etc. were 2025:JHHC:16982 13 shown that the land in dispute was vested in the State and it was held that the land in dispute did not vest with the State and the issue No. V was decided in favour of the plaintiffs. 30. In sequence to the aforesaid, issue No. VI was decided by holding that the State was realizing rent from the plaintiffs and so without cancelling jamabandi running in favour of the plaintiffs, there was no occasion for the State officials to issue settlement parch (Exhibit-C) to the defendant No. 4 though the same was neither issued by the competent authority i.e. SDO, Chatra nor any order with regard to settlement of disputed land in favour of defendant No. 4 has been produced and ultimately held that the State officials had no occasion to issue settlement parcha in favour of defendant No. 4. 31. It was held that since defendant No. 4 did not acquire any right, title and interest over the suit land on the authority of Exhibit-C i.e. settlement parcha and as such the transferees of defendant No. 4 could not get any right, title and interest over the property and therefore neither the defendant No. 4 nor their vendees acquired any right, title and interest over the suit property and this issue was also decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. Issue No. I, II and III were also decided in favour of the plaintiffs and ultimately the suit was decreed. Issue No. VII was also decided in favor of the plaintiffs subject to the payment of deficit court fees. 32. So far as learned 1st appellate court is concerned, altogether three points for determination were framed; they are- (i) whether the plaintiffs acquired right, title, interest and possession over the suit property on the strength of Hukumnama issued by the ex-zamindar? (ii) whether the settlement was made prior to vesting or it was made after coming into force of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and subsequently the land vested with the State of Bihar? 2025:JHHC:16982 14 (iii) Whether State of Bihar or their authorities had the right to make settlement in favour of defendant No. 4 and consequently whether the defendant Nos. 5 and 7 acquire any right, title, interest and possession over the suit property? 33. The learned 1st appellate court first considered point of determination No. 1 and referred to Hukumnama (Exhibit-1) and three zamindari rent receipts which were marked as Exhibit 4, 4/A and 4/B and recorded that the plaintiffs obtained rent receipts even after abolition of zamindari. The learned 1st appellate court referred to the evidence of DW- 1, who was the Revenue Karamchari, who stated that the rent receipts were being issued in the name of father of the plaintiffs and there was an entry to that effect in demand Register-II at page No. 6 and the rent receipts continued to be issued till 2009-2010. He has also stated that in page 71 of Register-II, there is an entry in favour of Usha Devi, W/o Ramavatar Pasin and the demand was shown running in her name. The details of khata number, area has been mentioned in the second column which also has cuttings but does not have any initial and the ink used in page No. 71 does not tally with the earlier ink on the same page. No order has been drawn to enable any cutting on page No. 71. It has also been recorded that the demand has been shown in Khata No. 19/01 and 17/01 which stands in the name of defendant No. 4. 34. With the aforesaid background, the learned 1st appellate court concluded that plot No. 452/01 area 1.51 acre , Khata No. 74/02 does not find mention in the bandobasti parcha and there is no reference of Exhibit- C in Register-II at page No. 71. It was held that it could not be said that plot No. 452 area 1.51 acre was running jamabandi in the name of defendant No. 4. The learned 1st appellate court also considered the specific argument of the defendants that the documents produced by the plaintiffs including Hukumnamas were forged and fabricated and ultimately recorded that perusal of Register-II reveal that it is in relation to Settlement Case No. 09/84-85 and Exhibit-C did not mention regarding 2025:JHHC:16982 15 settlement of Khata No. 74/02 and thus plot No. 452/01 area 1.51 acre correspondent to Khata No. 74/02 does not find mention in bandobasti parcha. The learned 1st appellate court ultimately held that no demand was running in the name of Usha Devi under Khata No. 74 Plot No. 452 area 1.51 acre. The learned 1st appellate court also recorded that on the bandobasti parcha, there is signature of the Circle Officer and the LRDC but the bandobasti has not been done by the SDO who was the competent authority to make settlement in favour of landless persons and consequently upheld the judgment of the learned trial court and held that the defendant No. 4 did not acquire any right, title and interest and therefore her transferees also did not acquire any such right, title and interest. The other points for determination were also decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiffs. 35. So far as the substantial question of law no. 1 is concerned, it is not in dispute that vide order dated 03.12.2015 in Civil Appeal no. 05 of 2010, it was ordered by the learned 1st appellate court that the petition under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC shall be decided at the time of pronouncing the judgment. However, upon perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned 1st appellate court, it appears that the additional evidence has not been considered and accordingly, the 1st appellate court’s judgment cannot be sustained on account of non- consideration of the additional evidence filed by the defendants. 36. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied heavily on the additional evidence by submitting that the same has a bearing on the title of the plaintiffs. However, since the additional evidence has not been considered by the learned 1st appellate court and considering the nature of substantial question of law no. 1, the matter is to be considered afresh by the learned 1st appellate court so far as the title of the plaintiffs is concerned. 37. It is further made clear that the learned 1st appellate court would exercise its jurisdiction in accordance with law with regard to the 2025:JHHC:16982 16 additional evidence. Consequently, the finding of the learned 1st appellate court with regard to point of determination no. 1 is hereby set-aside. The judgment passed by the learned District Judge -I, Chatra in Civil Appeal No. 05 of 2010 is set-aside to the aforesaid extent. Accordingly, substantial question of law No. 1 is decided in favor of the appellants and against the respondents. 38. So far as the substantial question of law no. 2 is concerned, this Court finds that the plaintiffs were claiming raiyati right over the property and the defendants were claiming the property on the basis of settlement made by the State by virtue of Purcha (exhibit- C). The State was also a party in the proceedings, but the written statement of the State was not accepted by the court. The exhibit C was discarded on the point of lack of competence of Circle Officer / LRDC to issue settlement/ bandobasti and also on other grounds. This substantial question of law deals only with the point of competence /jurisdiction to issue settlement/ bandobasti. 39. This Court finds that the learned Courts have taken into consideration certain circulars issued by the Government with regard to competence of one or the other authority in the matter of issuance of settlement. However, those circulars have not been exhibited before the learned court and no specific issue with regard to competence of competence of Circle Officer / LRDC was framed by the learned court. Further, the written statement of the State was also not taken on record. 40. Issue no. (vi) as framed by the learned trial court was broadly worded – as to whether the State or its officials have the right to settle the suit land in favour of the defendants. This issue was primarily on account of the fact that the plaintiffs were claiming raiyati right over the property and it was asserted by the plaintiffs that raiyati property of the plaintiffs cannot be settled by the State to any other person. It is not in dispute that if the raiyati right of the plaintiffs is proved, then certainly the State would not have the right to settle the land in favour of one or the other person including the contesting defendants. 2025:JHHC:16982 17 41. Both the learned courts have taken into account the circulars issued by the Revenue Department in order to come to a conclusion that Circle Officer / LRDC were not competent to issue settlement/ bandobasti and only SDO (Sub-Divisional Officer) was competent but such circulars which were relied upon to come to the finding were never exhibited before the learned court and even the written statement filed by the State was never taken on record. This Court is of the considered view that both the learned courts have committed perversity by relying upon the unexhibited circulars while holding that the exhibit- C is not a valid document as the settlement was not made by the competent authority. 42. In the aforesaid background, it is sufficient to observe that if in any other proceeding as may be permissible in law it is held that the Circle Officer / LRDC had no jurisdiction to issue settlement/ bandobasti involved in this case the necessary consequences arising out of such proceeding will certainly follow. 43. The 2nd substantial question of law is accordingly decided in favour of the appellants in the aforesaid terms. 44. The 3rd substantial question of law is also related to exhibit-C - settlement/ bandobasti . The learned counsel for the appellants has rightly submitted that Exhibit-A to A/5 were the rent receipts and Exhibit-A1 was the certified copy of the Register-II. He has submitted that in the substantial question of law though exhibit-A and A1 has been referred to as demand register, but exhibit-A is the rent receipt and exhibit-A1 is the demand register-II. This aspect of the matter has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents also. 45. So far as the substantial question of law no. 3 is concerned, this Court finds that it has been recorded by the learned trial court and confirmed by the learned 1st appellate court that survey plot and khata number with regard to current plot No. 452/1 under current khata No. 74/2 area 1.51 decimal has not been mentioned in parcha (Exhibit-C); On perusal of page 71 of Register-II (Exhibit-A1), it appeared that the holding 2025:JHHC:16982 18 number, which corresponds to khata number, has been mentioned as 19/1 and 71/1 and on this basis, the learned court recorded that the plot No. 452/1 area 1.51 decimal under khata No. 74/2 which finds place in bandobasti parcha i.e. Exhibit-C has not been incorporated in Register-II on page 71 and therefore it could not be held that jamabandi with regard to plot No. 452 area 1.51 acre was running in the name of Usha Devi (defendant No. 4). It has also been recorded by the learned court that DW- 1/a who is a government servant had admitted in paragraph 14 of his cross-examination that different pen and different ink have been used for making entry available at page No. 71 with regard to jamabandi of Usha Devi. This Court has also perused the parcha (Exhibit-C) and Register-II (Exhibit-A1) and finds that the observations are correct. 46. This Court is of the considered view that the learned trial court has considered the fact that in the demand register II (Exhibit- A/1), there is a reference of exhibit- C, but at the same time, the learned trial court has recorded certain mismatch to reject the claim of the defendants on the basis of exhibit- C. 47. The learned 1st appellate court has also recorded that though exhibit-C finds mention in Register-II (exhibit-A/1) but there are certain mismatches and rejected exhibit-C. 48. In view of the aforesaid discussions of the learned courts, this Court is of the view that both the courts have not omitted to consider that exhibit-C finds reference in Register-II (exhibit-A/1). 49. This Court finds that the learned courts having not omitted to notice and have not failed to consider mentioning of exhibit-C on Register-II, it cannot be said that the courts have committed perversity when it is seen in the light of substantial question of law no. 3. The 3rd substantial question of law is accordingly answered against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. 50. However, in this case the plaintiffs are claiming raiyati rights and therefore, it is for the plaintiffs to prove their case with regard to their title 2025:JHHC:16982 19 over the property. Since the finding with regard to point of determination no. 1 [(i) whether the plaintiffs acquired right, title, interest and possession over the suit property on the strength of Hukumnama issued by the ex-zamindar?] as decided by the learned 1st appellate court has been set-aside by this Court on the ground of non-consideration of the additional evidence sought to be adduced at the 1st appellate stage by the defendants, the matter is remanded back to the learned 1st appellate court for recording fresh finding in connection with the point of determination no. 1 in accordance with law. 51. Parties to appear before the learned 1st appellate court or its successor court on 3rd November 2025 at 11.00 am and the learned court shall make all endeavour to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible. 52. Parties to cooperate. 53. This second appeal is accordingly disposed of. 54. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. 55. Let this judgment be communicated to the court concerned through ‘e-mail/FAX’. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul/-