1997 (3) TMI 643 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Declaration of title to the disputed land.
2. Determination of "Khas possession" under the Bihar Land Reforms Act.
3. Validity of the findings by the Subordinate Judge and High Court.
4. Rights of the appellant as a raiyat.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Declaration of Title to the Disputed Land:
The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit seeking a declaration of title to 3 bighas and six kathas of land bearing Plot No. 235 and 243 in Khata No. 952. The respondent claimed to have purchased the land on May 23, 1957, from Raja Dumraon Raj. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, accepting the appellant's contention that he had been in possession of the land as a lessee since 1925. The Subordinate Judge later declared that the respondent had valid title to the property, which was confirmed by the High Court.

2. Determination of "Khas Possession" under the Bihar Land Reforms Act:
The core issue revolved around whether the respondent's predecessor-in-title, Dumraon Raj, was in "Khas possession" of the land, thereby enabling the respondent to acquire title under the sale deed. The Bihar Land Reforms Act's Section 6(1) was pivotal, stating that lands in "Khas possession" of an intermediary on the date of vesting would be deemed settled by the State with such intermediary, who would then hold them as a raiyat.

3. Validity of the Findings by the Subordinate Judge and High Court:
The Subordinate Judge's findings were challenged on the grounds that they were legally incorrect. The Subordinate Judge had concluded that the respondent was in possession of the land based on entries from 1952-69 and ruled that the land was leased out on a year-to-year basis, thus not requiring proof of "Khas possession" by Dumraon Raj. However, it was contended that the Subordinate Judge did not establish that the enquiry under Rule 7-E(iii) was conducted with notice to the appellant, making the findings non-binding.

4. Rights of the Appellant as a Raiyat:
The appellant argued that he had been in possession of the land as a raiyat since 1925, supported by documents like the original Khatiswani and Jamabandi Register of Dumraon Raj. The Supreme Court emphasized that "Khas possession" means actual, cultivatory possession, not merely a right to possess. The court noted that the appellant's continuous possession since 1925, even after the estate's abolition in 1951, indicated that he held the land as a raiyat. The respondent failed to provide unequivocal evidence that Dumraon Raj retained intermediary rights post-vesting.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the Subordinate Judge. The court directed the respondent to restitute possession to the appellant within two months, failing which the appellant could execute the order with police assistance. The court reiterated that "Khas possession" requires actual physical control and cultivation, which the appellant had demonstrated, thus entitling him to retain possession as a raiyat.