Pravir Garg Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

For the Petitioners : M/s Amar Kr. Sinha & Sushant Kumar, Advocates For the State : Mr. Shivam Anand Pathak AC to SC-III For Respondent no. 5 : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate -----

¶29

Oral Order

¶30

24 / Dated : 11.03.2024

¶31

Both these writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16.11.2010 passed in SAR Revision No. 49 of 2010 and 50 of 2010 respectively under Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act (for short CNT Act) by which restoration has been ordered in favour of respondent no. 5- Parna Munda (since deceased) with respect to 0.98 acres appertaining to Plot No. 663, Khata No. 29, Village Kathargonda, District Ranchi.

¶32

As per the case of the petitioners, the land in question was recorded in the name of Most. Pairo Mundain W/o of Etwa Munda in RS Khatiyan published in the year 1935 as her raiyati Tand II land having 3 kiaris known as Hargadi Tand without indicating in any way that the said land was a private graveyard or any other tribal had right to use the same as graveyard. The recorded raiyat transferred the land measuring 98 decimals of R.S Plot No.663 of village Kathargonda in favour of Barka Pushuwa Munda way back in the year 1940 by

¶33

2

¶34

executing a registered sale deed no.2215 dated 06.05.1940 and the purchaser came in cultivating possession of the said land. In the year 1943, the said land was surrendered by raiyat Barka Pushuwa Munda to Ex-landlord by registered deed of surrender 245 dated 16.01.1943 (Annexure-3) under Section 72 of the CNT Act.

¶35

After the said surrender, in 1947 the Ex-landlord granted permanent Chapperbandi lease of plot to Beni Prasad Garg and also transferred his right, title and interest in the said property by executing the registered deed of permanent lease dated 30.06.1947 along with Chhaparbandi Settlement Deed 4714 dated 15.07.1947 (Annexures-4 ). Said Beni Prasad Garg transferred the said property to M/s Garg Enterprises Ltd. by registered deed of sale on 13.05.1950 and on 26.04.1961 the said property was sold to Parmanand Garg and Purnanand Garg by registered sale deed. Purnanand Garg is the father of both the petitioners.

¶36

After said sale, the land was duly mutated and they started paying municipal tax. The SAR proceeding was initiated on an application of Parmanand Garg (respondent no. 5) who is himself to be the heir and descendant of the recorded raiyat Pairo Mundain.

¶37

The impugned order for restoration has been passed on the ground that it was a rent free land used as burial ground by the tribals. Further ground for passing the restoration order is that Pairo Mundain had not surrendered the land in favour of Ex-landlord. Further the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 955 of 1991 in Pandey Uraon Vs. Ramchandra Sahu was considered by passing the impugned order.

¶38

First ground for challenge is that the surrender of the said land was made by way of registered deed of surrender executed in the year 1943, whereas the restoration case has been filed after a gap of more than 60 years which cannot be said to be reasonable in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2000) 5 SCC 141, 2004 (4) JLJR 109 (SC), 2008 (2) JCR 1 (SC). Furthermore, the nature of land was changed by virtue of a registered Chapparbandi settlement deed dated 15.07.1947. At that point of time, there was no requirement for seeking permission from any competent authority for change of nature of land in question from tenancy of Chapparbandi. The said requirement came into force by virtue of the amendment on 05.01.1948 by insertion of clause. Once the nature of land changed and it is ceased to be an agricultural land, tenancy law and restriction therein will not apply. Reliance is

¶39

3

¶40

placed on 1989 BLT 404 (Pat HC), 2002 (3) JCR 669 (Jhr), and 2001 (3) JCR 210 (Jhr).

¶41

Learned counsel for the State and private respondent have strenuously argued against the execution of the sale deed in favour of Barka Pushuwa Munda in 1940 and the deed of surrender executed by him in favour of the ex-landlord. It is argued that it was rent free land, being used as a burial ground and was not converted into chapparbandi land, which shall be apparent from the oral evidence recorded in the SAR Case.

¶42

It is difficult to accede to the argument of the Respondents that sale deed executed by Pairon Mundain, followed by registered surrender deed executed by Barka Pushuwa Munda and subsequent registered lease deeds executed by the Ex-landlord along with the Chhapparbandi Deed, and the subsequent sale deeds with mutation order were all forged document without legal sanctity.

¶43

Respondent claim to be the heirs of the recorded tenant of Pairon Mundain who had transferred the land in 1940 by registered deed of sale to Barka Phuswa Munda , who surrendered the land in 1943 by a registered indenture. It has been rightly argued on behalf of the Petitioners that restoration case has been filed after more than 60 years of the registered surrender deed which cannot be called a reasonable time for preferring the restoration application under Section 71A and therefore was not maintainable. Nature of land had changed long back in 1947 to Chhaparbandi land by the ex-land lord on execution of Chhaparbandi Settlement Deed. It is settled law that CNT Act will not apply to Chhaparbandi land. There is presumption of genuineness in favour of registered document and heavy burden lies on the party who assails such a document. Title transfer on the execution of the said instrument. (Refer to 2009 (5) SCC 713). Private Respondents claim to be the heirs of Pairo Mundain whose title in the property got transferred by the sale deed executed in the year 1940. Under the circumstance, the impugned order is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. Both Writ Petitions are allowed.

¶44

I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

¶45

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶46

AKT/Satendra

¶47

Uploaded

Pravir Garg v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravir Garg v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Prakash Sinha Vs State of Jharkhand through CBI

Harish Chandra Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binod Oraon Vs State of Jharkhand

Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited through Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava Vs Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Labour and Employment

M/S.Heavy Engineering Corporat Vs Employee Provident Fund Oragan

Raju Das Vs The State Of Jharkhand