RANCHI, India, Feb. 11 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Jan. 12:

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.

2. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 [Jitu Pal] is present.

3. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent no.1 - Jagarnath Maji and respondent no.3 - State of Jharkhand.

4. This appeal has been filed under section 87(2) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CNT Act") against the judgment dated 16.07.2018 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 32 of 2016 whereby the learned 1st appellate court has affirmed the order dated 26.09.2013 passed by the learned Revenue Officer, Dhanbad in Case No. 313 of 2010.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned 1 st appellate court has failed to consider that the present appellant is in possession of the suit property. He has submitted that in the record-ofright, illegal possession of the present appellant has already been recorded. The present appellant was defendant no. 2 in the suit.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that before the learned 1st appellate court, a map of the Lakhi Mata Colliery was filed to show that the land in question was in the possession of the appellant. He has submitted that this aspect of the matter has not been properly considered.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that Jagarnath Maji and Jitu Pal had filed petition seeking rectification of record-of-rights wherein the property was recorded in the name of State of Jharkhand and was shown in the possession of the present appellant.

8. The plaintiffs claimed the suit property by virtue of the three registered sale-deeds of the year 2004, 2006 and 2008 and they also claimed that the mutation was also carried out in their name and rent receipts were also issued and Jamabandi was also created in their name.

9. The defendants in the suit opposed the prayer. However, the learned Revenue Officer, by referring to the documents produced by the plaintiffs, recorded that the property is the raiyati property of the plaintiffs and also recorded that the defendant no. 2 could not produce any document to show that the property belongs to the defendant no. 2 and that the raiyat has been paid compensation for the property. Consequently, the Revenue Officer directed that the name of the State of Jharkhand be deleted from the record-of-rights and also directed that the illegal possession of the defendant no. 2 be also deleted.

10. Aggrieved with the order of the Revenue Officer, the State of Jharkhand did not prefer any appeal. However, the defendant no. 2 preferred an appeal which was numbered as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 32 of 2016.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x2sW0WzyHO%2Fl4ARBs4Ni5Pq1DugSoiLkVVDS%2BepvfVsT&caseno=LPA/736/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010346802025&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.