Rajendra Choudhary And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. K. K. Ambastha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC (L&C)-I For the Resp. No.5 : Mr. Yogendra Prasad, Advocate

¶17

Oral Order

¶18

22 / Dated : 16.04.2024

¶19

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

1. Respondent No.5 filed an application claiming restoration of the lands measuring 24 decimals under Plot No. 683 and 45 decimals in plot No. 684 of Khata No.4 situated at Village-Madhukam, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District: Ranchi, before the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi was registered as S.A.R Case No.165 of 1996.

¶21

2. The application for restoration was rejected, against which Respondent No.5 (Sadhu Oraon) preferred appeal before Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (Respondent No.3) in S.A.R. Appeal No. 239 of 98-99. Order impugned was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Special Officer on 03.06.2022.

¶22

3. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioners filed S.A.R. Revision Case No.69 of 2002 before the Commissioner and the same was rejected. Instant writ petition has been preferred against the order passed in appeal as well as in revision.

¶23

CASE OF THE PETITIONER

¶24

4. Land in question as detailed above was recorded in the name of Ram Chandra Sahu, son of Kolha Sahu in the revisional survey record of rights published in the year 1935. Said Ram Chandra Sahu was in peaceful possession of said land as will be evident from the remarks column as sikmi raiyat and as per the

¶25

1

¶26

village note prepared and published by the Government at the time of Revisional Survey settlement (1935), the under-raiyats, sikmidar had occupancy right (Khatian and Village note) at Annexure-1 and 1/A). Under Section 84 of the CNT Act there is presumption in favour of entries made in the records of rights.

¶27

5. Having been in peaceful and in khas possession of the land, Ram Chandra Sahu became the raiyat with respect to the land, in question and he was accepted by the State as tenant after vesting.

¶28

6. Said Ram Chandra Sahu on account of natural love and affection executed a gift deed with respect to the entire land to his daughter and her five minor sons on 23.08.1961 and they were admitted into possession.

¶29

7. Ram Chandra Sahu died in the year 1965 and his wife/widow Rukmini Sahu died sometimes thereafter. As per the case of the petitioners, they came into peaceful possession of the said land. The property was partitioned between the five maternal sons of Ram Chandra Sahu in Partition Suit No. 128 of 1979. Plot No.631/C was allotted to the share of Murari Lal, S/o Kanchan Lal Sahu.

¶30

8. There was ongoing litigation between the Kanchan Lal Sahu and Ajmal and Aslam with respect to the land in question, which resulted in compromise vide Title Suit No. 157 of 1979 in the court of the Munsif, Ranchi.

¶31

9. On the basis of the compromise, registered deed was executed by Murari Lal along with Ajmal Hussain and Aslam Ansari for 2 Kathas 11 Chhataks of land in favour of Ramanugrah Choudhary, father of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, on 13.10.1984, who on the strength of sale deed came in possession and constructed pucca building on the said plot and is residing and paying rent to the Ranchi Municipal Corporation.

¶32

10. One Mangal Oraon, son of late Sadhu Oraon and grandson of Kaila Oraon filed Title Suit No. 17 of 1971 against Rukmini Sahu, widow of Ram Chandra Sahu for declaration of his raiyati right over R.S. Plot Nos. 681, 683, 684 and 685 of the said village and the said suit was dismissed for default by order dated 16.06.1975.

¶33

11. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that from bare reading of plaint of Titile Suit No. 17 of 1971, it would be evident that Kaila Oraon died in the year 1950 and Sadhu Oraon died in the year 1969 leaving behind Mangal Oraon as his only heir(s). Thus, Respondent No. 5 was stranger to the family of the recorded tenant.

¶34

2

¶35

12. The main contention of the petitioners is that the well-reasoned order passed by the Special Officer in S.A.R. Case No.165 of 1996 wherein the restoration case was dismissed and further has been set aside by the Deputy Commissioner and remanded back without recording any specific reason for the same.

¶36

13. Restoration case filed under Section 71 A of the CNT Act was not within reasonable time in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in AIR 2000 SC 2276, 2004 (4) JLJR 109 (SC) and 2008 (2) JCR 1 (SC). Even if the possession of the appellant is accepted since the time when the Title Suit was filed in the year 1971 by Mangal Oraon, restoration case being filed in the year 1996 after more than 35 years, was barred by limitation.

¶37

CASE OF RESPONDENT NO.5

¶38

14. Admittedly land in question was recorded in the name of Kaila Oraon in the record of rights finally published after the revisional survey in the year 1935. The village note which has been heavily relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners does have interpolation(s) as the said note does not bear the signature or the date which casts serious cloud on the veracity on it. Considering this aspect, the learned Deputy Commissioner sets aside the order passed by the SAR Officer, in the said SAR Appeal No.239 of 1998-99.

¶39

15. Further-more, there is no evidence after vesting that Ram Chander Sahu or his heir(s) continued in possession of the land, in question and were accepted as tenant by the State. The Deputy Commissioner was not satisfied with the evidence of possession and, therefore, the matter was remanded back to the SAR Officer for reconsidering the matter. Reliance is placed on Pandey Oraon Vs Ram Chander Sahu 1992 Suppl(2) SCC77.

¶40

16. As per oral evidence, Respondent No.5 was in cultivating possession till 1984. ANALYSIS

¶41

17. Entries in record of rights are evidence of possession. Admittedly land in question was recorded in the name of Kaila Oraon, whereas the possession of Ramchandar Sahu was shown in the remarks column as sikmi raiyat since 1935. As per the village note sikmi raiyat was heritable as per the village note. The argument questioning the authenticity of entries made in the finally published record of rights cannot be raised before a writ Court, in view of the presumption of correctness of entries made in a finally published record of rights under Section 84(3) of the CNT Act. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner in pursuance of the order dated

¶42

3

¶43

19.09.2022 wherein at para 8 it has been stated that Letter No. 263 dated 07.10.2022 (Annexure A to the affidavit) was the photocopy of certified copy of the Village Note genuinely issued by the District Record Room, Ranchi. No contrary evidence was led to rebut the heritable nature of land.

¶44

18. There are other evidences on the basis of which the Special Officer rejected the restoration application. After abolition of Zamindari, Ramchandra Sahu was accepted as raiyat without any opposition from any quarter. Land in question was transferred by registered deed of gift to his daughter Shakuntala Devi in 1961 and her sons partitioned the property in Partition Suit No.128 of 1979.

¶45

19. Learned counsel for respondent no. 5 has submitted that the restoration case is not barred by limitation as they were in actual possession of the land till 1984. If it was so, then what was the occasion for filing the title suit by Mangal Oraon in 1971. In view of the documentary evidence of possession, oral evidence cannot be acted upon.

¶46

20. The suit filed by Mangal Oraon being Title Suit No.17/71 was disposed of by the Judgment delivered in 1975 on the basis of compromise. Even if the year of filing the title suit is accepted to be the date of dispossession, restoration case has been filed after a delay of 35 years which cannot be said to be reasonable time for filing restoration case.

¶47

For the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the view that impugned order passed in S.A.R. Appeal No. 239 of 98-99 and S.A.R. Revision Case No.69 is not sustainable in eyes of law and is accordingly set aside.

¶48

Writ petition is allowed.

¶49

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

¶50

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. )

¶51

AKT / Satendra Uploaded

¶52

4

Rajendra Choudhary And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Choudhary And Ors. 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

Ashish Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Barun Singh Hembram and Ors. Vs the State of Jharkhand Represented through Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Nandlal Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chhutan Mahato Vs Govind Mahato and Ors.

Upadhya Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binay Krishna Saha And Anr. Vs Laxmi Devi