2026:JHHC:17626 --1-- S.A. No. 444 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI S.A. No. 444 of 2015 ---- 1(a). Bhagti Prasad Singh, S/o Late Satya Narayan Singh 1(b). Ram Niwas Singh, S/o Late Ramashish Singh 1(c). Madhubala Kumari, D/o Late Ramashish Singh 1(d). Abhijit Kumar Singh, S/o Late Ramashish Singh All are resident of village and Post – Bagra, PS – Simaria, District – Chatra, Jharkhand .... Appellants -- Versus -- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, Office at PO and PS – Chatra, District – Chatra 2. The Sub-Divisional Officer (S.D.O.), Chatra, Office at PO and PS – Chatra, District – Chatra 3. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector (L.R.D.C.), Chatra, Office at PO and PS – Chatra, District – Chatra 4. The Anchal Adhikari, Simariya, PO and PS – Simariya, District – Chatra 5. The Divisional Forest Officer, South Division, Chatra, Office at PO and PS – Chatra, District - Chatra .... Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Appellants :- Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate For the Respondents :- ---- 12/17.06.2026 This Second Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.05.2015 and decree dated 08.06.2015 passed in Title Appeal No.26 of 2010 by learned District Judge-II, Chatra, whereby the said Title Appeal has been dismissed affirming the judgment and decree dated 03.05.2010 and 13.05.2010 respectively passed in Title Suit No.10 of 2003 by learned Munsif, Chatra 2026:JHHC:17626 --2-- S.A. No. 444 of 2015 dismissing the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiff. 2. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiff submits that the original plaintiff has left for his heavenly abode and now the legal heirs and successors of original appellants have been substituted. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants have preferred Title Suit No.10 of 2003 before the Court of Munsif, Chatra for declaration of plaintiffs right, title and interest over the suit land described in Schedule ‘C’ and confirmation of possession with alternate relief that in case the plaintiff shall be dispossessed during the pendency of the suit, khas possession may be delivered through the court, permanent injunction, cost of the suit and other reliefs to which the plaintiff is entitle. He further submits that the said suit was decided by learned Munsif by judgment dated 3rd May, 2010 and it was dismissed and aggrieved with that the appellants/plaintiff preferred Title Appeal No.26 of 2010 and the said title appeal was further dismissed by the learned appellate court by judgment dated 22nd May, 2015. 4. Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that both the learned Courts have erred in law in not considering the Sada Hukumnama (Exhibit-12) at least for a collateral purpose and in view of that there is law point to admit the present second appeal. He further submits that Exhibit-11 was not further considered and the possession of the petitioner was not 2026:JHHC:17626 --3-- S.A. No. 444 of 2015 appreciated by both the learned Courts and this is the second law point to admit the present second appeal. He then submits that on these two substantial question of law the present second appeal may kindly be admitted. 5. From the judgments of the learned Courts, it transpires that the case of the appellants/plaintiff was that the land appertaining to Khata No.138 plot No.917 area 0.02 acres out of 10.10 acres of village Serendag, P.S Simariya, Dist- Hazaribag (Now Chatra) was recorded as Gair Mazurua Khas land under Samilat Malikan Khewat No.2/5 (within 2/2 2/4) during last survey settlement operation. The Khewat 2/2 was recorded in the name of Raghunandan Bhagat whereas khewat 2/4 in the name of Pandey Harhangi Singh of village Tundag, P.S. Simariya. Pandey Harhangi Singh had three sons, namely, Pandey Nem Narayan Singh, Pandey Bramh Narayan Singh and Pandey Raghuwar Dayal Singh, who inherited the properties of his father. Pandey Bramh Narayan Singh had six sons namely Pandey Ganga Singh, Pandey Mathura Singh, Pandey Luxmi Singh and Pandey Bansi Singh, Babu Jodh Singh and Babu Bhupal Singh, out of them Jodh Singh and Bhupal Singh were minors who inherited the properties of their father after his death. Pandey Ganga Singh also died leaving behind his only adult son Pandey Sagar Singh and two minor sons, namely, Babu Nanhak Singh and Babu Prithwi Nath Singh, which is shown in schedule-B of the plaint. Pandey Nem Narayan Singh and his son, Pandey Raghuwar Dayal 2026:JHHC:17626 --4-- S.A. No. 444 of 2015 Singh and sons and grand-sons of Pandey Bramh Narayan Singh sold their five Anna four Pie share in respect of land of Khewat No.2/4 and 2/5 in favour of Choudhary Bindeshwar Singh, Choudhary Bhuneshwar Singh, both sons of Choudhary Jagan Singh and Choudhary Jiv Nath Singh sons of Choudhary Narsingh Singh by virtue of deed No.271 of 1936 and amicably partitioned the afore mentioned land and the suit land fell in the share of Choudhary Bindeshwar Singh who continued his possession over the same. 6. Further case of the appellants/plaintiff is that his great grand-father Nemu Singh was recorded tenant of Khata No.35 and 36 of aforesaid village Serendag and also of khata No.44 of village Bagra having residential house there. A genealogy has also been given in schedule-A of the plaint showing relationship with the plaintiff. He had been cultivating the land of village Serendag. The plaintiff and his father were settled raiyats of village Serendag, who reclaimed the suit land with prior permission to the ex-landlord Choudhary Bindeshwar Singh of village Kurumdari, the ex-landlord after having found the plaintiff in possession settled the suit land with Satya Narayan Singh by issuing Hukumnama and Zemindari rent receipt on Tithi (not mentioned) Magh Mah Samwat 1993. Accordingly, the plaintiff came in possession and he was also recognized as the tenant after vesting of Zemindari by issuing rent receipts bearing No.224135 for 1953-54 and receipt No.133113 for the year 1957-58. But the Halka Kramchari thereafter, had not 2026:JHHC:17626 --5-- S.A. No. 444 of 2015 issued any receipt on pretext of missing of Register No.II of concerned village. In 1998, the Halka Karamchari and Circle Inspector made spot inspection and found possession of plaintiff over suit land having tea stall in tiled veramdah. Thereupon, the C.O Simariya initiated mutation Case No.04/98-99 and forwarded the record to LRDC Chatra, who rejected the recommendation of Anchal Adhikari observing the suit land as forest land and sent the record to S.D.O Chatra, who accepted the report of LRDC. The plaintiff preferred revision before D.C., Chatra, in which D.C directed the circle officer, Simariya to search out relevant papers and pass order within 90 days, but the C.O. has not yet passed order. The plaintiff has served notice under Section 80 of the C.P.C to the D.C Chatra, which remained un-replied. The defendants have been threatening by the plaintiff to dispossess from the suit land as such the cause of action for this suit arose. 7. Further case of the appellants/plaintiff is that as Government notification u/s.30 of the India Forest Act 1927 dated 20.01.1953 was expired on 20.01.1983 and as such the defendant No.5 has no right, title and interest over the land, and even if any notification would have been issued it could not effect the individual right of the plaintiff. It is also false that land of Khata No.138, Plot No.917 was vested in the State of Bihar and it is within forest demarcation area. There are several other raiyats, who hold lands within plot no.917 appertaining to Khata No.138 of village 2026:JHHC:17626 --6-- S.A. No. 444 of 2015 Serendag. In response to the notices, the defendants appeared and contested the suit by filing their separate written statements. 8. The case of the defendant No.1 to 4 inter alia is that the suit is not maintainable, the plaintiff has no valid cause of action and the lands of Khata No.138, plot No.917 area 0.02 acres was vested to the State of Bihar and remained in its possession. The ex- landlord had not granted any Hukumnama in favour of plaintiff as such alleged Hukumnama is forged and anti-dated and no demand was opened in the name of plaintiff by the order of competent authority. Out of total area (10.10 acres) of plot No.917 two acres land is demarcated as forest land. The khata is recorded as G.M khas and Jungle-Jhari in survey Khatiyan. 9. The further case of defendant is that taking opportunity of vacant land the plaintiff started claiming land and wanted to open a tea stall with ulterior motive. As such the state officials stopped his illegal work. Neither Anchal Adhikari have found the plaintiff in possession of the suit land nor initiated any Mutation case. The suit land is Government land. The plaintiff has no valid right, title and interest and possession over the suit land and as such he is not entitled for any claim. The defendants, thus, prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs. 10. The defendant No.5 also contested the suit by filing written statement. Besides the ornamental pleadings it is stated that the suit land appertaining to Khata No.138, plot No.197, measuring an 2026:JHHC:17626 --7-- S.A. No. 444 of 2015 area of 10.10 acres was recorded as Jungle Darakhtan Sakhu in the last cadastral survey and still in possession of forest department. It was vested in estate under provisions of BLR Act 1950 and the suit plot No.917 including other plots of village Serendag has been duly notified as protected forest vide Government notification No.C/PF 10171/52/28/R dated 02.01.1953 and accordingly the suit plot is part and parcel of forest land. No nature of land has been changed. As such the forest department has valid right, title and possession over the same. The Zemindar has also not issued any Hukumnama or rent receipt in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs. The State of Bihar has not recognized him as tenant. However, the plaintiff had not made any claim at the time of inquiry and measurement made by forest settlement officer. Rent receipts of year 1954-55 and 57-58 are also false. The LRDC after due verification of the papers and on the basis of report of B.D.O., Simariya held that disputed land belongs to the State on 16.02.99. The plaintiff never came in possession, hence there is no question of any threatening of dispossession by the defendants. The plaintiff has also under valued the suit, thus he also prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs. 11. The learned trial court has framed six issues to decide the suit and issue No.5 was with regard to the plaintiffs right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. While deciding the said issue, the learned trial court has taken into consideration all the 2026:JHHC:17626 --8-- S.A. No. 444 of 2015 exhibits including the Exhibits-5, 11 and 12 on which the reliance has been placed by learned counsel appearing for the appellants. The other exhibits have also been taken into consideration by the learned trial court. 12. Plaintiff (Satya Narayan Singh), who has left for his heavenly abode now, has been examined as P.W. 1 and on examination-in-chief he has reiterated his case. In paragraph No.13 of the cross-examination, he has stated that the cause of suit is that the Karamchari denied to issue the rent receipt in the year 1957-58 and in paragraph No.15, he has stated that the Khata No.128 was recorded as jungle jhari. It has also been stated that the owner of 5 anna 4 pie was Bindeshwar Singh and owner of rest land was Nilkant Bhagat. The Khata No.138 was of Bindeshwar Singh. In paragraph No.21, he has stated that first time he got knowledge about the hukumnama in the year 1960, when dispute arose in between him and his uncle. In the year 1960, he went to the Karamchari for issuance of rent receipts. After the year 1990, he approached the Anchal Adhikari for the rent receipt and in Paragraph No.24 of cross-examination dated 05.11.2009, he has stated that the Karamchari did not issue rent receipt because his name was not in Register-II. 13. The learned trial court has further considered the evidence of other PWs as well as DWs and on the basis of the pleadings/evidence and arguments of learned counsel for both the 2026:JHHC:17626 --9-- S.A. No. 444 of 2015 parties the learned trial court has found that Khata No.138 plot No.917 area 10.10 acres of village Serendag was recorded as Gair Mazurua Khas under samilat malikan. Khewat No.2/2 was recorded in the name of Raghunandan Pd. Bhagat and Pandey Har Hangi Singh. Thus, the learned trial court has found that the said Raghunandan Pd. Bhagat and Pandey Har Hangi Singh were ex- landlord of Gair Mazurua Khas land of Khata No.138 of village Serendag. The nature of the land of Khata No.138 plot No.917 area 10.10 acres of village Serendag was recorded as Darkhatan Sakhu Jungle in Khatiyan. In view of this, the learned trial court has found that the said land is in the nature of Gair Mazuruwa Khas land. While considering the Exhibit-12 which is the hukumnama, the learned trial court has found that the land of Khata No.138 plot No.917 area 02 decimal of village – Serendag is said to be settled as raiyati land. However, according to the khatiyan, the total area of plot No.917 of village - Serendag was recorded as Darkhatan Sakhu Jungle, which was later declared a protected forest in the year 1953. At that time, it was not cultivable land it was jungle therefore the ex-landlord has no right to settle the jungle as raiyati land to plaintiff. In view of that the learned trial court has given the finding that the said Exhibit-12 is forged, fabricated, manufactured and anti-dated document. 14. The learned trial court has further considered the Exhibits- 11 and 11/A and has found that receipt No.224135 issued on 2026:JHHC:17626 --10-- S.A. No. 444 of 2015 02.03.54 and rent realized for the year 1953-54. It has further found that receipt No.133113 (Exhibit – 11/A) was issued on 03.06.58 and rent realized for the year 1957-58 only and in view of that the learned trial court has found that the rent for the year 1954-55, 1955-56 and 1956-57 was due but there is no endorsement of arrears. Furthermore, it has not been mentioned that the aforesaid rent receipts issued after perusal of zamindari rent receipts and even page number of Register-II was not stated. 15. Thus, there is clear cut consideration by the learned trial court of the exhibits on which the learned counsel appearing for the appellants tried to make out a law point to admit the present second appeal, thereafter, the suit was dismissed deciding the other issues by the judgment dated 03.05.2010 and aggrieved with that the appellants/plaintiff preferred Title Appeal No.26 of 2010 which was decided by the judgment dated 22.05.2015. Learned first appellate court has further re-considered the evidences as well as exhibits and examined the judgment of the learned trial court. 16. In paragraph No.9 of the learned appellate court judgment, the learned first appellate court has framed the law points to decide the appeal. 17. Learned appellate court has further considered the evidence of PW-1 in paragraph No.13 of the judgment as well as evidence of other witnesses. While examining the Exhibits – 11 and 11A, the learned appellate court found that it was for the year 1953-54 and 2026:JHHC:17626 --11-- S.A. No. 444 of 2015 1957-58 respectively. However, there was no zamindari number and there was no page number of Register – II. While examining the Exhibit-12 which was the Hukumnama, the learned appellate court has found that Choudhary Bindeshwar Singh had settled the suit land to the plaintiff Satya Narayan Singh on 5th Mah Magh Sambat 1993 corresponding to English calendar 1935 showing his boundary out of his own share one anna four pies. 18. Exhibit – 13 which is the certified copy of sale deed No.5351 was considered by learned appellate court and it was found that one Dasrath Singh had exchanged the land of Khata No.138 Plot No.917 measuring 02 decimals of village - Serendag to the land of Dwarika Thakur of Khata No.53, Plot No.1272 area 10 ½ decimal out of 21 decimal of village - Serendag. 19. Learned appellate court has found that Exhibit-12 which is hukumnama was an unregistered and unstamped document which was written in kaithi script but its translated copy had been filed by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiff and the custody of aforesaid receipts and hukumnama have not been duly proved by the plaintiff as well as the genuineness of the signature of the executor of the alleged hukumnama has not been proved. Considering all these aspects and further relying on the certain judgments the learned appellate court has been pleased to dismiss the appeal affirming the judgment of learned trial court. Thus, it is clear that what has been argued by the learned counsel appearing 2026:JHHC:17626 --12-- S.A. No. 444 of 2015 for the appellants with regard to non-interpretation or non- admission of the exhibits have been dealt with by the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court and clear-cut finding has been given. There is no perversity in the said finding of the learned Courts and in view of that there is no substantial question of law to admit the present second appeal. 20. The High Court sitting under Section 100 of CPC is not required to re-appreciate the evidence to admit the second appeal, only on the substantial question of law the second appeal can be admitted. 21. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court finds that there is no substantial question of law to admit the present second appeal. Accordingly, this second appeal is hereby dismissed. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Dated 17.06.2026 Sangam/