Allowed

Rajesh Sahu And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Jharkhand HC23 Jan 2024WPC/3358/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration of tribal land transferred by registered sale deed in 1943 was sought after more than 60 years. Relying on Supreme Court rulings that Section 71A applications must be filed within reasonable time, the court held the restoration proceeding time barred, set aside the revisional order and restored the appellate authority's order.

What did the court decide?

Impugned revisional order set aside; appellate authority's order restored; writ petition allowed.

Rajesh Sahu And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr. — Property and Title | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W. P. [C] No. 3358 of 2011

¶4

1.Rajesh Sahu 2.Dilip Kumar Gupta .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. 2.Soma Oraon . .. ... ...Respondent(s)

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

......... For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Niraj Kishore, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, SC.I Mr. Sachin Kumar, AC to SC.I For the Resp. 2 : Mr. Mokhtar Khan, Advocate

¶7

11/ 23.01.2024 . Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

1. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 12.07.2010 (Annexure-7) for restoration passed in S.A. R. Revision No.43 of 2006, the instant Writ Petition has been filed for quashing of the said order.

¶9

2. Earlier S.A.R. Case No.21 of 2005-06 was filed for restoration which was rejected, against which, the petitioner preferred appeal which was allowed and aggrieved by the order, the private respondent i.e. respondent no.2 preferred revision application in which the order passed by the appellate authority has been reversed.

¶10

3. The challenge to the impugned order is two folds. Firstly on the ground of limitation as the restoration case was filed in the year 2005 whereas the land, in question was transferred by the registered sale deed in favour of predecessor in interest of the petitioners in the year 1943. As such, the restoration application has been filed after more than 60 years, and during the intervening period, constructions were made and building has already been built on the said piece and parcel of the land.

¶11

The second ground taken in the instant Writ Petition is that provisions of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (in short C.N.T. Act) does not apply to homestead land. Land in question was by way of registered document converted to chhaparbandi and then chapparbandi rent was collected by the State. These facts have not been disputed in the counter affidavit.

¶12

4. In the present case, in the year 1943, the recorded tenant transferred the land by way of registered sale-deed on 02.07.1943 to one Rangtu Oraon and the purchaser, after coming into peaceful possession made construction over it and it was converted into chhaparbandi land and the land appertains to R.S. Plot No.1041, Khata No.72 corresponding to M.S. Plot No.107 over an area of 10 Katha applied to the ex-landlord for conversion of the said land into Chhaparbandi land and the same was converted vide Registered Deed No.4311

¶13

¶14

of the year 1943. After the said conversion, the ex-landlord started receiving chhaparbandi rent with respect to the land, in question. Further, said Rangtu Oraon sold the land to one Professsor Kishori Prasad Sinha and he continued to pay rent after mutation of land in his name.

¶15

5. Petitioner(s) are the purchasers of the said land from the registered power of attorney holder in the year 2004. The order of revisional authority has been challenged on the ground that under the C. N. T. Act, 1908, no limitation has been specifically stated, however, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Situ Sahu and Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors., [2004 (5) SCC 340] has held that the application under Section 71A of the said Act needs to be filed within a reasonable period of time and in that case, lapse of time of 40 years was held to be not reasonable and further it has been held in Jai Mangal Oraon vs. Mira Nayak [200(5) SCC 141 ] that lapse of 40 years is not a reasonable time. On the plea that land having not been converted into homestead and chhaparbandi being accepted, therefore, provisions of C. N. T. Act was not applicable.

¶16

6. Reliance is placed on Anupama Roy vs. State of Bihar and Ors. [2003 SCC OnLine Jhar 380 ] wherein it has been held that issuance of chhaparbandi rent was prima-facie a type of evidence of the land which has not been converted into chhaparbandi land and, therefore, the provisions of C. N. T. act would not apply.

¶17

7. Learned SC.I for the State submits that the State has filed counter-affidavit and the specific stand is that there was no substantial structure constructed over the said plot. The land, in question, was transferred in the year 2004, but no step was taken for getting the same mutated in favour of the petitioner (s). Further, only mentioning of chhaparbandi in the sale-deed does not change the nature of land from raiyati to chhaparbandi.

¶18

8. Learned counsel for the private respondent i.e. respondent no.2 has submitted that he has also filed counter-affidavit and it is pleaded that learned appellate court without making any enquiry had arrived to a finding that sale-deed was executed in the year 1943 and there is no prescribed limitation period for restoration under Section 71A of the C. N. T. Act. Further-more, reference of chhaparbandi in the recital of deed will not make it a homestead plot.

¶19

9. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, it is apparent that the land in question was transferred by the ancestor of the respondent more that 60 years before the institution of the SAR case in the year in 1943 by registered instrument to the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioner. Initiation of the restoration proceeding cannot be said to be made within reasonable time in view of the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jai Mangal Oraon (supra) and is accordingly time barred. Impugned order is not

¶20

¶21

sustainable and is accordingly set aside and the order passed by the Appellate authority is restored.

¶22

Writ Petition is allowed.

¶23

( Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. )

¶24

Sandeep/Uploaded.

Rajesh Sahu And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Sahu And Anr. v. State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ruplal Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sona Devi Alias Piyaso Devi Vs State of Jharkhand

Sunil Kumar Nayak Vs State of Jharkhand

Edupuganti Vara Prasad Choudhary Vs Bokaro Steel Limited And Ors.

Kamshwar Singh Vs Union of India And Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Singhania Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.