Dwarikadhish Sharma And Ors. Vs State of Bihar And Ors.

--For the Petitioners : Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwary, Advocate : Mr. Ashish Verma, Advocate For Private Respondents : Mr. R.M. Khuzaima, Advocate For the State : None ---

¶57

30 /10.02.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners

¶58

and the private respondents.

¶59

2. Nobody appears on behalf of the State.

¶60

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for quashing the revisional order dated 28.9.99 (Annexure-3) passed by the Respondent No. 2 Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Ranchi Revenue Revision No. 32 of 1986 whereby and whereunder the said respondent no. 2 has quashed the orders passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in S.A.R. Appeal No. 53R/15 of 1980-81 and the orders of the Special Officer Khunti passed in all the concerned S.A.R. cases referred to in the impugned order except the order passed in S.A.R. Case No. 2 of 79/80 as the impugned order passed by the Respondent No. 2 betrays a total non-application of mind

¶61

2

¶62

2026:JHHC:3621

¶63

purportedly passed in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under section 217 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act.”

¶64

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the disputes in this case are relating to SAR Case No. 1 of 1979-80, SAR Case No. 2 of 1979-80 as well as SAR Case Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14 and 107 of 1979-80.

¶65

SAR Case No. 2 of 1979-80

¶66

5. So far as order passed in SAR Case No. 2 of 1979-80 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per paragraph 10 of the writ petition, the same has been challenged by the petitioners before the appellate authority and the case has been numbered as SAR Appeal No. 108 of 1979-80 which is still pending before the Additional District Collector, Ranchi as mentioned in paragraph 10 of the writ petition. However, he submits that instead of Additional District Collector, the term “Additional District Magistrate, Ranchi” has been used and the same be read as “Additional District Collector, Ranchi”.

¶67

6. The learned counsel has also submitted that in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Commissioner, it has been recorded that the order passed by the SAR officer in Case No. 2 of 1979-80 has become final. The learned counsel has submitted that the fact stated in paragraph 10 has not been specifically denied in the counter-affidavit. However, no document in support of the statement in paragraph 10 of the writ petition has been placed on record. He submits that if SAR Appeal No. 108 of 1979-80 is pending before the appellate authority, then the order of the learned Commissioner that it has become final cannot be sustained.

¶68

7. Admittedly, no document has been placed on record to submit that the appeal is pending. Even the case number of such appeal has not been mentioned. This Court also finds that the learned Commissioner has recorded that in SAR Case No. 2 of 1979-80 the prayer for restoration was allowed by the Special Officer (SAR) and that order has not been interfered by the Additional Collector and it has been recorded that the said order has attained finality, therefore,

¶69

3

¶70

2026:JHHC:3621

¶71

the impugned order in connection with SAR Case No. 2 of 1979-80 does not call for any interference. SAR Case No. 1 of 1979-80

¶72

8. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the proceedings in connection with SAR Case No. 1 of 1979-80. The learned counsel has submitted that this relates to Khata No. 7 of village Patratoli, P.S. Torpa consisting of 21 plots total area 31.83 acres and as recorded in the impugned order passed by the learned commissioner, the land was recorded in Khatiyan in the name of ancestors of the petitioners (private respondents herein). He submits that the said land was surrendered by the recorded tenant by registered document on 04.11.1936 and at that point of time, the permission of the Deputy Commissioner was not required. However, the claimants (private respondents herein), who were seeking restoration of the land under section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the “CNT Act”), alleged that the said surrender deed was a fabricated document. The learned counsel submits that the learned commissioner has remanded the matter to Special Officer (SAR) for enquiry regarding possession of the land of Khata No. 7 which was subject matter of SAR Case No. 1 of 1979-80.

¶73

9. During the course of hearing, the connected appellate order in connection with SAR Case No. 1 of 1979-80, which is contained in Annexure-2, has also been placed and it appears that the appellate authority has also not given any finding in connection with the land in question and has observed that the SAR Court is required to look into the various factors.

¶74

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that he has nothing to say so far as SAR Case No. 1 of 1979-80 is concerned.

¶75

11. This Court is of the considered view that the appellate authority had left the matter to the SAR Officer for final decision and the revisional authority has also remanded the matter to the SAR Officer only. Under such circumstances, the order passed in the SAR Case No. 1 of 1979-80 has not yet attained finality.

¶76

4

¶77

2026:JHHC:3621

¶78

12. In such circumstances, the order passed by the learned Commissioner in connection with SAR Case No. 1 of 1979-80 also does not call for any interference at this stage.

¶79

13. The final order, if any, passed by the learned SAR Court in SAR Case No. 1 of 1979-80 has not been placed on record. However, if no final order has been passed so far, it is directed that the SAR Officer shall do the needful within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties.

¶80

14. In case final order has not been passed in SAR Case No. 1 of 1979-80, the parties are directed to appear before the SAR Officer at Khunti on 6^th of July 2026 at 11:00 a.m, who is directed to act in accordance with law.

¶81

SAR Case Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14 and 107 of 1979-80

¶82

15. So far as the proceedings in connection with other SAR cases being SAR Case Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14 and 107 of 1979-80 are concerned, the same has been discussed by the learned Commissioner from paragraph 6 onwards of its order.

¶83

16. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the land involved in the said proceedings is of Khata No. 1 of village Patratoli, P.S. Torpa consisting of 7 plots having total area of 2.87 acres. The learned counsel submits that on the face of the discussions made by the learned Commissioner, the property has been shown in the recordof-rights as “Bet Kheta” land which means that they are the privileged land of the landlord. The learned counsel has referred to section 43 and section 118 of the CNT Act to submit that there is a legal bar in creation of occupancy raiyati right over the property.

¶84

17. The learned counsel has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of “Narain Singh Vs. Indu Gowala” reported in 1990 (1) BLJ 675 (paragraph 28 to 33) to submit that “Bet Kheta” land, being the privileged land of the landlord, there is no question of any raiyati right of the applicants with respect to the said property. He has submitted that merely because in the remarks column, the name of ancestors of the private respondents has been indicated showing them in possession upon payment of rent, the same

¶85

5

¶86

2026:JHHC:3621

¶87

will not by itself change the nature of the land i.e., the privileged land of the landlord.

¶88

18. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the learned Commissioner has no jurisdiction to declare a right akin to a right of adverse possession by observing that the possession of the applicants cannot be taken away after 64 years. The learned counsel has submitted that it has also been recorded by the learned Commissioner that after abolition of Zamindari, the legal heirs of the landlord, whom the petitioners are representing, got the rent fixed in their favour in the year, 1956. The learned counsel submits that the legality and validity of the fixation of rent under the Bihar Land Reforms Act cannot be questioned by the learned Commissioner in the proceeding under section 71-A of the CNT Act.

¶89

19. The learned counsel has then referred to section 8 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and submits that there is a specific provision to challenge any of the acts and orders which are taken by the competent authority under the Bihar Land Reforms Act. He submits that the very fact that the rent was fixed in the year, 1956 itself reveals that the raiyati right of the landlord was duly acknowledged by the State upon filing of returns by the landlord.

¶90

20. The learned counsel has further submitted that the learned Commissioner has committed perversity by holding that the petitioners have fraudulently dispossessed the applicants and has accordingly wrongly directed restoration of the aforesaid land to the applicants. The learned counsel submits that the appellate order passed by the appellate authority in the aforesaid cases, was quashed.

¶91

21. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to section 84 of the CNT Act and has submitted that the record-of-rights finally published has presumptive value in law and is presumed to be correct as per the provisions of CNT Act.

¶92

22. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the applicants had acquired the right of a raiyat with

¶93

6

¶94

2026:JHHC:3621

¶95

respect to the properties involved in SAR Case Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14 and 107 of 1979-80.

¶96

23. The learned counsel has submitted that the applicants remained in possession of the property for long duration as recorded by the learned Commissioner in the impugned order itself and therefore, they were the raiyats and their application under section 71-A of CNT Act seeking restoration of land, was maintainable and the order passed by the learned Commissioner has been rightly passed.

¶97

24. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties in connection with the impugned order relating to SAR Case Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14 and 107 of 1979-80, this Court finds that as per the entry made in the RS record-of-rights which had admittedly taken place sometimes in the year 1932 onwards, the nature of land has been recorded as “Bet Kheta” and it was shown to be in possession of the ancestors of the applicants seeking restoration of land under section 71-A of CNT Act since a number of years.

¶98

25. Section 43 and section 118 of the CNT Act are quoted as under:

¶99

“43. Bar to acquisition of right of occupancy in, and to application of Chapter VI to landlords' privileged lands and certain other lands.- Notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter IV, a right of occupancy shall not be acquired in, nor shall anything contained in Chapter VI or in Sections 64 to 66 apply to,-

¶100

(a) landlord's privileged lands referred to in clause (a) of Section 118, when they are held by a tenant on a registered lease for a term exceeding one year or on a lease, written or oral, for a period of one year or less, or

¶101

(b) landlords' privileged lands referred to in clause (b) of Section 118, or

¶102

(c) land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) for any Government or any local authority or Railway Company or land belonging to the Government within a cantonment while such land remains the property of the Government or of any local authority or Railway Company, or

¶103

(d) land belonging to the Government or to any local authority or to any Corporation constituted under any law for the time being in force for the promotion of public health of the agricultural, industrial, economic or general well-being

¶104

7

¶105

2026:JHHC:3621

¶106

of the people in any area which is used for any public work, such as a road, canal embankment, dam or reservoir, or is acquired for the repair or maintenance of the same while such land continues to be so used or required.”

¶107

“ 118. Definition of "landlord's privileged lands" - (1) The expression "landlord's privileged lands", as used in this Chapter, means,-

¶108

(a) lands which are cultivated by the landlord himself with his own stock or by his own servants or by hired labour or are held by a tenant on lease for a term exceeding one year, or on a lease written or oral for a period of one year or less, and which are by custom, recognised as privileged land in which occupancy-rights cannot accrue, and

¶109

(b) Land which are known as 'Zirat' in the Chota Nagpur Division other than the Districts of Ranchi and Dhanbad and Patamda, Ichagarh and Chandil police-stations in the district of Singhbhum, which are known as man in the district of Dhanbad and Patamda, Ichagarh and Chandil policestations in the district of Singhbhum and lands which are entered as Manjhihas or Bethkheta in any register prepared and confirmed under the Chota Nagpur Tenures Act, 1869 (Ben. Act 2 of 1869).

¶110

(2) From such date as the State Government may by notification direct, no lease for a term which exceeds or might in any possible event exceed one year shall be considered for the purpose of clause (a) of this Section unless it be in writing.”

¶111

26. From the perusal of sections 43 and 118 of the CNT Act, the “Bet Kheta” are the privileged land of the landlord and no occupancy raiyati can be created on such property.

¶112

27. In the judgment passed by Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of “Narain Singh Vs. Indu Gowala” (Supra), it has been held that under the CNT Act, provisions have been made as to how a raiyat acquires a right of occupancy in respect of the land and it has also recorded by the Hon’ble Court that section 43 of the CNT Act carves out an exception to the said provision and by reason of the said provision, notwithstanding contained anything in part 4 of the CNT Act, the lands which are the privileged lands of the landlord within the meaning of the provisions thereof, no occupancy right can be acquired in relation thereto.

¶113

8

¶114

2026:JHHC:3621

¶115

28. In view of the aforesaid judgment, even by virtue of long possession by the tenant as recorded in the RS record-of-right and even on account of payment of rent as recorded therein, the ancestors of the applicants in whose favour such entry regarding possession was made, do no acquire the status of raiyat. This is over and above the fact that upon vesting of Zamindari and upon filing of returns by the landlord, rent was fixed in their favour way back in the year 1956. The fixation of rent under Bihar Land Reforms Act is statutory exercise conducted by the authority under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act and any order passed therein, is appealable under section 8 of the said Act.

¶116

29. This Court is also of the view that the exercise having been undertaken by the authority under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act and Rent having been fixed in the favour of the petitioners, way back in the year 1956, the same could not have been questioned by the learned Commissioner in the proceeding seeking restoration of land under section 71-A of CNT Act.

¶117

30. The learned Commissioner has committed perversity while holding that the applicants (private respondents herein) had acquired the status of tenant in the “Bet Kheta” land of the landlord and has also committed perversity by questioning the fixation of rent in favour of the landlord upon vesting of Zamindari.

¶118

31. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner with respect to the proceedings arising out of the SAR Case Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14 and 107 of 1979-80 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and accordingly, the said order is hereby set-aside.

¶119

32. This writ petition is accordingly allowed in aforesaid terms, so far as it relates to SAR Case Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14 and 107 of 1979-80 and the impugned order is set aside to the aforesaid extent.

¶120

So far as the impugned order relating to SAR Case No. 2 of 1979-80 is concerned, the impugned order does not call for any interference.

¶121

9

¶122

2026:JHHC:3621

¶123

So far as the impugned order relating to SAR Case No. 1 of 1979-80 is concerned, the impugned order does not call for any interference, but with certain observations and directions as mentioned above.

¶124

33. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed.

¶125

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)

¶126

Date of Order: 10.02.2026 Pankaj Date of Uploading: 09.05.2026

¶127

10

Dwarikadhish Sharma And Ors. v. State of Bihar And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dwarikadhish Sharma And Ors. v. State of Bihar 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

Manoj Kumar Sahu Vs State of Jharkhand AndORS

Sulochana Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Laltu Rawani And Ors. Vs Umapada Jha And Ors.

Balo Yadav Vs Dhalo Yadav And Ors.

Sufal Bouri Vs Bini Devi

Jagat Murmu Vs Bhadaw Murmu