Allowed

Pushpa Kumari And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC5 Mar 2024WPC/2750/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Purchasers from a co-operative society challenged an S.A.R. Officer's restoration order under Section 71A CNT Act. The court held that since the land was recorded as homestead/Chhapparbandi and not raiyati, the CNT Act did not apply; the order was indefensible and was set aside.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 29.02.2012 passed by the S.A.R. Officer, Ranchi in the three SAR cases set aside.

Pushpa Kumari And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Land Acquisition | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 2750 of 2012

¶3

¶4

Pushpa Kumari

¶5

Madhu Kumari Singh

¶6

Shobha Prasad

¶7

Lekha Prasad … …. Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Jharkhand

¶10

The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi

¶11

S.A.R. Officer, Ranchi

¶12

Budhua Oraon … …. Respondents -----

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶14

----For the Petitioners : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Prakash, AC to SC-IV -----

¶15

Oral Order

¶16

08 / Dated : 05.03.2024

¶17

The order dated 29.02.2012 passed by the S.A.R. Officer, Ranchi in SAR Case No. 70/1992-93 corresponding to TR No. 494/1994-95, SAR No. 21/1993-94 corresponding to TR No. 221/1994 and SAR Case No. 29/1992-93 corresponding to TR No. 48/1992-93 is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

¶18

The petitioners have purchased the plot of land from one Rupam Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd., a Co-operative Society registered under the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 on different dates from the years 1989 to 2005.

¶19

The order of restoration of land under Section 71A of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act (for short CNT Act) has been passed in favour of private respondent no. 4. The order is challenged on the ground that the land in question was Chhapparbandi land and the provision under Section 71A of CNT Act will not apply, as the CNT Act is applicable only in cases of raiyati land. It is argued that Section 46 of CNT Act specifically provides for restriction of transfer with respect to raiyati right in holding or any portion thereof. Raiyat has been defined in Section 6 of the CNT Act which is as under:

¶20

“ 6. Meaning of “raiyat” . — (1) “Raiyat” means primarily a person who has acquired a right to hold and for the purpose of cultivating it by himself or by members of his family, or by hired servants or with the aid

¶21

¶22

of partners; and includes the successor-in-interest of persons who have acquired such a right, but does not include a Mundari-khunt-kattidar. Explanation:- Where a tenant of land has the right to bring it under cultivation, he shall be deemed to have acquired a right to hold it for the purpose of cultivation, notwithstanding that he uses it for the purpose of gathering the produce of it or of grazing cattle on it.

¶23

(2) A persons shall not be deemed to be a raiyat unless he holds land either immediately under a proprietor or immediately under a tenureholder or immediately under a Mundari-Khunt-Kattidar.

¶24

(3) In determining whether a tenant is a tenure-holder or raiyat, the

¶25

Court shall have regard to:-

¶26

(a) local custom, and

¶27

(b) the purpose for which the right of tenancy was originally acquired.

¶28

In the present case, the land is appertaining of Khata No. 66 and different plots under Municipal Holding No. 1665/Ward No. 3 under Village Argora. In the impugned order, a definite finding has been recorded that the land in question was homestead in nature. Despite said finding having been recorded, the order of payment of compensation has been passed under proviso 2 of Section 71A of the CNT Act which is under challenge in the instant writ petition.

¶29

Specific reference is made to the following finding to the impugned order:

¶30

^^lHkh i{kksa ds cgl lquus ds i'pkr~ ,oa nkf[ky dkxtkrksa ds voyksdu djus ij ;g ckr Li"V gksrk gS fd blh izdfr dh Hkwfe ds fy, ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa lh-MCyw-ts-lh- ua0 3484@92] 3485@92] 3486@92] 3487@92] 3488@92] 3489@92] 3490@92 nk;j dh xbZ Fkh vkSj NIijcanh ds fcUnq ij gh 17-02-2000 dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk] jkaph csap us bl U;k;ky; }kjk fuxZr uksfVl dks fujLr dj fn;k FkkA ekuuh; vij lekgÙkkZ] Hkw&gncanh }kjk Hkh 20-06-1988 dks fn;s x;s vkns’k esa Hkwfe dh izdfr NIijcanh crkbZ xbZ gSA vr% IykWV la0 2077] 2078] 2079 ,oa 2080 dks NIijcanh Hkwfe ekurs gq, ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns’k ds vkyksd esa ;g okn [kkjht gksus ;ksX; gSA**

¶31

Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned order.

¶32

Despite the service of notice, private respondent no. 4 has not appeared and this writ petition is being heard ex-parte.

¶33

¶34

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the counter affidavit, I find that it has not been disputed that the land in question was homestead and not a raiyati land. As far as the order of restoration or compensation under proviso-2 of Section 71A of the CNT Act is concerned, it can be passed only in the event of violation of any provision of CNT Act. Once a finding is recorded by the Special Area Regulation Officer that the land in question was a Chhapparbandi land, Per force, the CNT Act will not be applicable. The order passed after recording the said finding is indefensible and is accordingly set aside.

¶35

The writ petition is allowed.

¶36

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶37

AKT/Satendra Uploaded

Pushpa Kumari And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa Kumari And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

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

Pradip Pandey Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Khandoli Paryatan and Adventure Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Jharkhand

Niranjan Sharma And Anr. Vs Mineral Area Development Autho

Rohit Modi And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Shivcharan Marandi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Uco Bank, Bit Mesra Branch Vs Smt.Renu Sharma And Ors.