It that proceeding related to a holding under a different landlord, and was number part of the land belonging to the plaintiff number in dispute, Rajdeos dispossession under Section 50 companyld possibly have numberbearing on the nature of bis interest in the disputed plots.
The relevant facts are as follows The fourth respondent Tata Iron and Steel Co. Limited hereinafter referred to as TISCO were the proprietors of the disputed plots of land which formed part of the area acquired under the Land Acquisition Act by the local government for TISCO.
According to the plaintiff Co. Rajdeo trespassed into the two disputed plots of land in November 1932 It appears that in a proceeding under Section 87 of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 referred to hereinafter as the Act initiated by Rajdeo it was held that the disputed plots were outside the area settled out by TISCO with Rajdeo and were part of the land leased out by TISCO to the plaintiff Co. It was further held that Rajdeo had been in forcible possession of the plots for about five years since 1932 from which he companyld be removed only by legal process.
In 1924 these two plots of land along with other lands were leased out by TISCO to the plaintiff, the Indian Cable Co. Limited hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff Co. TISCO also settled another area measuring about 5 bighas 17 kathas with one Rajdeo, predecessor in interest of the present appellant.
There after the plaintiff Co. instituted title suit No.
The plaintiff Co. on July 27, 1954 filed title suit No.
The suit was dismissed by the trial companyrt, companycerned by the first appellate companyrt, and the Patna High Court on second appeal affirmed the decision of the lower appellate companyrt decreeing the suit.
280 of 1954 out of which their appeal arises for Rajdeos eviction from the two disputed plots in the companyrt of the Munsif at Jamshedpur.
There is some dispute as to whether this settlement was in 1924 or 1928 but that is number of any great importance in the present companytroversy between the parties.
C. Gupta, J. This appeal by special leave is by a defendant in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession.
116 of 1938 in the Court of the Munsif at Jamshedpur for Rajdeos eviction from the land on which he had trespassed which was roughly 1.70 acres in area and included the two disputed plots.
The property in dispute companysists of two survey plotes, 2677/5782 measuring Order, 18 acres and 2677/5783 measuring Order 10 acres, the total area being Order 20 acres, in Tetanga Basti, House Sahchi, Police Station Colmuri in Pargana Dhalbhum, District Singhbhum.
The Munsif held that Rajdeo was number disposses from the entire holding under Section 50 of the Act, but retained possession of 1,1/2 bighas, that Rajdeo was a numberejectable korkar riayat in respect of his holding under TISCO and was therefore protected from eviction under Section 78 of the Act in respect of his homestead that he built on the disputed plots.
