IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA S.A. No. 80 of 2006 Ram Chandra Pandey son of Lal Bachan Pandey, resident of village Karanpura, P.S. Chenari, District Rohtas ……. Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellant. Versus 1 (a) Haider Ali Beg (b) Gopi Ali Beg @ Mohammad Ali Beg @ Shaukat Ali Beg (c) Ahmad Ali Beg sons of late Jasin Beg 2. Mustquim Beg son of late Sakoor Beg 3(a) Tausif Beg son of Khalil Beg (b) Akhatari Khatoon (c ) Purnima Khatoon (d) Sahanz Khatoon, daughters of Khalil Beg, all residents of village Langi, P.S.Chenari, District Rohtas. ….Defendants -Respondents-Respondents 1st set 4. The State of Bihar, through Collector of Rohtas, Sasaram, P.S. Sasaram, District Rohtas. ..Defendant-Respondent-Respondent 2nd set. For the appellant : M/s Shailendra Kumar Singh and Ajay Kumar Tiwari, Advocates. For the respondents : None. ----------- 09/ 12.05.2009 Heard learned counsel for the sole appellant. 2. This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the learned courts below. 3. The matter arises out of Title Suit No.149 of 1986 which was filed by the plaintiff-appellant Ram Chandra Pandey for declaration that he had acquired valid right, title and interest in the suit property by virtue of settlement by the government. 4. The said title suit was dismissed on contest by the learned 3rd Additional Munsif, Sasaram vide his judgment and decree dated 15.06.1992. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree 2 of the trial court the plaintiff-appellant filed Title Appeal No. 94 of 1992 which was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge-Fast Track Court No.2, Rohtas vide his judgment and decree dated 03.01.2006. 5. From the arguments as well as from the materials on record, including the impugned judgments and decree it is quite apparent that the learned courts below after considering the entire pleadings and evidence of the parties came to the specific conclusion that defendants-respondents 1st set were claiming on the basis of settlement of the suit land by the ex-intermediaries in the year 1930 and their continuous and exclusive possession of the suit land. It was also proved by defendants-respondents 1st set that ex- intermediaries submitted the return of the land in dispute in their name and their claim was supported by rent receipts, water rent receipts, purchas and even the government record showed that they were in possession. 6. The learned courts below further found that although the State of Bihar was a party to the suit but it did not produce any document to show that the respondents were never shown in possession in the government records nor they could produce the Return filed by the ex-intermediaries to disprove the claim of defendants-respondents 1st set, which was based on copies of the Return filed by ex-intermediary in the names of the predecessor of the defendants-respondents which was produced by them in the court as exhibit. 3 7. The learned courts below also found that the plaintiff-appellant was claiming on the basis of settlement by the government in Settlement Case No.08/13 of 1967-68 but in the said case defendants-respondents 1st set were not impleaded although they were in possession of the suit land as per the government records itself. It was also found that the settlement case was started in the year 1967 whereas defendants-respondents 1st set had remained in possession since 1930 i.e. for more than 37 years and hence they had acquired occupancy right also in the suit property. 8. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that the lands in question were settled to the predecessor of defendants- respondents 1st set by the ex-intermediaries, who had also submitted Return in their name and accordingly the suit lands never vested in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act and thus the State of Bihar had no authority to settle the same to anyone, specially when respondents 1st set had also acquired right of occupancy over the same. 9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, nor does it find any substantial question of law involved in the instant second appeal, which is accordingly dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. harish/ ( S.N.Hussain, J)