IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SA No.370 of 2004 The State of Bihar through Collector, Kishanganj Defendant Ist Party-Appellant- Appellant Versus 1. Madhusudan Sharma s/o Kansu Sharma 2. Kansu Sharma s/o Ramphal Sharma resident of Hospital Road P.O. and P.S. Kishanganj Dist. Kishanganj Plaintiffs- Respondents Ist Party- Respondents 3. Union of India through General Manger, N.E. Railway Maligaon Gauhati Defendant 2nd Party - Respondent 2nd Party- Respondent --------- For the appellant: Mr Mahesh Prasad Standing Counsel No. 8 Ms Meera Kumari, AC to SC 8 ----------- 06/ 23.04.2010 I.A. No. 1553 of 2007 has been filed on behalf of the appellant on 13.03.2007 for condoning delay in the filing of the second appeal. Considering the averments made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the statement made in the interlocutory application, it appears that genuine reasons have been shown which prevented the appellant from filing the instant second appeal earlier. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is allowed and delay in the filing of this second appeal is condoned. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 3. This second appeal has been filed by the defendant- appellant-appellant challenging the judgments and decree of both the courts below. 4. The matter arises out of Title Suit no.21 of 1988 which was filed by plaintiffs-respondent Ist set for declaration of their title and also for declaration that the plaintiffs remained in peaceful possession over the suit land continuously, uninterruptedly and openly to the knowledge of - 2 - all and had perfected their right, title and interest in the suit land by adverse possession and defendant Ist party (State of Bihar) as well as defendant 2nd party (Union of India) had no right, title and interest over the same and also for correction of the municipal khatiyan as well as other ancillary reliefs. The said suit was decreed on contest by Subordinate Judge II, Kishanganj vide his judgment and decree dated 14.10.1996. 5. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court, defendant Ist party-appellant filed Title Appeal no.7 of 1997 which was dismissed on contest by Additional District Judge, Kishanganj, vide his judgment and decree dated 17.08.2004.Against the aforesaid judgments and decree of the courts below instant second appeal has been filed. 6. Mr Mahesh Prasad learned Standing Counsel No. 8 argued the second appeal at length and raised various questions in detail. However from the aforesaid documents as well as materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree of both the courts below, it is quite apparent that both the courts below have considered the matter in detail and have decided the case after considering the pleadings and evidence of both the parties. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiffs were in possession over the suit land since before vesting of Zamindari in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. 7. The plaintiffs had claimed that they were raiyats under the erstwhile Ex-interemediatory Nawab of Khagra and had proved it by valid and reliable evidence whereas the defendants failed to show that the suit land was public land or had been used for public purposes and hence the courts below were quite justified in holding that the suit property was - 3 - not a public land or land of the government. It is also apparent that in the municipal survey record, the land was recorded in the name of the State of Bihar but ancestor of the plaintiffs were shown in possession of the suit land and hence it is quite apparent from the records of the defendants themselves showed that the plaintiffs had remained in uninterrupted possession over the suit land since much beyond 30 years and had accordingly perfected their right and title over the suit land and had acquired status of occupancy raiyats over the suit land. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgments and decree of the 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. (S.N.Hussain,J) shahid