Dismissed

Ghuda Bhagat Alias Bhura Bhagat v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Jul 2023LPA/459/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Letters Patent Appeal challenged the dismissal of a Section 46 restoration application under the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. The High Court held that the appellant's ancestors were non-occupancy raiyats dispossessed via a valid judicial decree and execution case rather than illegally, thus negating any right to restoration.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed; pending interlocutory applications disposed of; no orders as to costs.

Ghuda Bhagat Alias Bhura Bhagat Vs the State of Jharkhand — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

L.P.A No. 459 of 2022

¶3

Ghuda Bhagat @ Bhura Bhagat ... ... ... Appellant

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Jharkhand

¶6

Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi

¶7

Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga

¶8

LRDC.Cum Special Officer, SAR, Lohardaga

¶9

Pati Devi

¶10

Domi Mahatoin @ Domni Mahtoin

¶11

Gandur Mahto

¶12

Bigu Mahto

¶13

Charku Mahto

¶14

Sriram Mahto

¶15

Maharaj Mahto … … ... Respondents

¶16

¶17

CORAM: SRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, C.J. SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

¶18

--------For the Petitioner: Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. P.A.S Pati, Advocate.

¶19

¶20

06/Dated: 17.07.2023

¶21

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court passed the following, (Per. Ananda Sen, J.)

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This Letters Patent is at the behest of the writ petitioner. By filing this appeal the appellant has challenged the order passed in W.P(C) No. 1280 of 2022 dated 7.9.2022 whereby the writ application was dismissed.

¶24

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that admittedly the land in question was recorded in the name of his predecessors, in the Khatiyan. His predecessors were dispossessed, thus an application for restoration of the land was filed under the provision of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. It was their case that land is in illegal possession of the members of non-tribals who were settled with the land, thus in SAR case No. 57 & 58 of 1995, an order was passed to restore the land in favour of the father of the petitioner. As per him, the Appellate Court, the Revisional Court as well as the writ court failed to take into consideration that when in the record of rights the name of the ancestors of this appellant were mentioned and admittedly they were dispossessed, the Appellate

¶25

-2-

¶26

Authority, the Revisional Authority and the Writ court have committed grave illegality in setting aside the order of restoration which was passed in favour of the appellant. He further submits that the alleged settlement made in favour of Chhatarman Ahir & Chama Ahir (nontribal) by the ex-landlord by virtue of “Sada Hukumnama” is absolutely bad as “Sada Hukumnama” cannot confer any right in favour of the private respondents. On this ground, he prays that this LPA be allowed by setting aside the Appellate Order, Revisional Order and the order passed in writ application and the land be restored in favour of the petitioner-appellant.

¶27

Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that in the records of right the land was recorded in the name of Gondey Oraon as “Dakhaldkar” for five years, thus Gondey Orain was a non-occupancy Raiyat, thus the said land was not inheritable. It is his contention that by virtue of a civil suit being Title Suit No. 248 of 1936 vide order dated 30.4.1937 the ex-landlord got the decree in his favour in respect of the land in question and thereafter by virtue of Execution No. 824 of 1937 he got possession over the land. The ex-landlord thereafter settled the land in favour of Chhatarman Ahir and Chama Ahir. The land was thereafter mutated in their name and they were paying rent to the government regularly. Thus, the writ application has correctly dismissed.

¶28

From the records, we find that the restoration application was filed by the applicant to restore the lands on the ground that there is a violation of the provision of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and non-tribal is in possession after dispossessing a tribal. It is the case of the appellant that he is a tribal and in Khatiyan land was recorded in the name of his forefathers but they have been illegally dispossessed. As per him, as his forefather were illegally dispossessed, thus the land had to be restored in their favour.

¶29

From the record, the facts which emerges are that the land belonged to the ex-landlord. By virtue of Title Suit No. 248 of 1936 the land in question was decreed in favour of ex-landlord.

¶30

-3-

¶31

Execution Case being Execution Case No. 824 of 1937 was filed by the ex-landlord and the said ex-landlord got possession of the aforesaid land through process of law. Thus ancestors of this appellant cannot be said to be dispossessed illegally, as by virtue of a judicial order way back in the year 1936-37 they were dispossessed. Since the dispossession is not an illegal dispossession, there exist no right to restore the land in their favour. There is no violation of Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act of 1908. The land thereafter in the year 1951 was settled in favour of Chhatarman Ahir and Chama Ahir by the ex-landlord. Though the said settlement was through unregistered “Sada Hukumnama” executed by the ex-landlord, yet the appellant cannot claim any benefit out of the said settlement by unregistered deed. If any settlement by unregistered deed has to be questioned, the same can be at the behest of heirs of the ex-landlord and not by this appellant whose ancestors were legally dispossessed by virtue of a decree passed by the Civil Court.

¶32

We also find that earlier a restoration case being SAR Case No.80/78-79 was filed before Sub-Divisional Officer for restoring the same land, but the said case was dismissed with an observation that there was no violation of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. Further we find that the learned Single Judge has held that the ancestors of this appellant was a non-occupancy Raiyat only for five years, which does not confer any raiayati right upon him or his ancestors.

¶33

The appellant is claiming title over the land only on basis of some entries made in the name of his ancestors in the record of rights. However, the said entry cannot have preference over the judicial order passed in Title Suit No. 248 of 1936 and Execution Case No. 824 of 1937.

¶34

Considering what has been discussed above, we are of the opinion that the alleged dispossession of the ancestors of this appellant is not illegal as the same has backing of law by virtue of the decree passed in title Suit and order passed in the execution case. Further the appellant cannot derive any title solely on the basis of some entries made in the records. Further the ancestors of this appellant being nonoccupancy raiyats cannot have any raiyati right upon the land.

¶35

-4-

¶36

Earlier restoration Case being SAR Case No.80/78-79 which was field by the father of the appellant was also dismissed. Considering the aforesaid, the Appellate Authority has rightly allowed the appeal of the respondents and the Revisional Authority has dismissed the revision filed by the appellant. The learned Single Judge had correctly dismissed the writ application. Further we find that learned Single Judge has correctly held that instant SAR Case No.57 & 58 of 1995 is barred by res-judicata as a similar issue was already decided against the appellant. 10. We find no merit in this writ application, thus the Letters Patent Appellant stands dismissed.

¶37

All pending Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.

¶38

No orders as to costs.

¶39

Grant urgent certified copy of this order as per the Rules.

¶40

(Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, C.J.)

¶41

(Ananda Sen, J.)

¶42

Anjali/

¶43

N.A.F.R

Ghuda Bhagat Alias Bhura Bhagat v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghuda Bhagat Alias Bhura Bhagat v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Jharkhand through Commandant Jharkhand Armed Police 7 Vs Manish Kumar Mishra

Upendra Prasad Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Their Workman Smt Gulabia Devi Vs Employers in Relation to the Management of Sudamdih Shaft Mine of Eastern Jharia Area of Ms B C C L

Ms Usha Martin Limited Through Its President Mining Division Sri Karun Kant Dave Vs Mines And Geological Survey

Vivek Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nitesh Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Rural Development Department