Mahto Munda vs State of Bihar and Others

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.—This application has been preferred by the petitioner against the orders passed by the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi dated 20th June, 1988, whereby and whereunder, the petition u/s 71-A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (for short C.N.T. Act) preferred by the petitioner for restoration of land in question, registered as S.A.R. Case No. 17/85 has been rejected.

The petitioner has also challenged the appellate order dated 6th November, 1993 passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in S.A.R. Appeal No. 56-R 15 of 88-89, the same having been dismissed.

The pleading in the writ petition is incomplete and the details of lands having not mentioned, it is difficult to give the detailed facts of the case.

According to the petitioner, the lands under Khata Nos. 160, 161, 162, and 163 of Village Morhabadi. P.S. Bariatu, Town and District - Ranchi were his ancestral Bhuinhari lands. They were transferred in favour of the 5th respondent, Pratima Buxi and others in contravention of Sections 46 and 48 of the C.N.T. Act in or about the year 1939 and, therefore, the petitioner filed a petition u/s 71-A of the C.N.T. Act for restoration of the lands being S.A.R. Case No. 17/85, which was rejected by the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi by order dated 26th June, 1988.

The appeal preferred by the petitioner being S.A.R. Appeal No. 56-R 15 of 88-89 was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Ranchi.

The only allegation made in the writ petition is that the 5th respondent illegally got the land transferred in her name in contravention of law and circumventing the provision of Sections 48/46 of the C.N.T. Act under the garb of a permission obtained from the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi u/s 49 of the C.N.T. Act.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no proper permission granted nor consent given to the terms of deed which was a mandatory requirement u/s 49(3) of the C.N.T. Act. The respondents are holding the lands in contravention of Section 49(3), 48 and 46 of the C.N.T. Act.

From the S.A.R. Appeal No. 56-R 15/88-89, it appears that the following lands were only involved in the said case :

Khata No. Plot No. Area

161 1603 0.20 Acres

162 1602 0.40 Acres

0.60 Acres

From the list of the parties i.e. respondents, it appears that the lands as shown against their names, namely, respondent Nos. 9 to 26, had no concern with the lands as described in S.A.R. Appeal No. 56-R 15/88-89. The descriptions of their lands are totally different, such as :

Khata No. Plot No.

160 1604 (respondent No. 5)

160 1616 (respondent No. 131

160 & 1616 & (respondent No. 10)

161 1617 etc.

In this background, the writ petition as against the private respondents, except respondent Nos. 27 and 28 is not at all maintainable, their lands being not the subject matter of the appeal. If those lands were the subject matter before the 1st Court in S.A.R. Case No. 17/85 and those lands have not been made the subject matter in the appeal, the 1st Court''s order as such having reached finality, no writ can be issued nor any order can be passed against the contesting respondents, except respondents 27 and 28.

So far as the rest two respondents i.e. respondent Nos, 27 and 28 are concerned, no specific case has been made out against them. It appears that the lands in question, were transferred by the ancestors of petitioner after obtaining permission u/s 49 of the C.N.T. Act from the competent , authority. No challenge was made that the provision of Section 49 was not followed.

There is a specific period of limitation prescribed under Sub-section (5) of Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act to annul any transfer, in case of any illegality committed in the matter of transfer of land. The application having not been preferred within the period of limitation (twelve years) as prescribed under Sub-section (5) of Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act, the period of limitation cannot be extended by allowing a party to prefer application u/s 71-A of the C.N.T. Act.

Further, the petitioner having failed to point out any illegality committed in grant of permission u/s 49 of the C.N.T. Act, the lands cannot be restored on the basis of vague pleading.

There being no merit, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order, as to costs.