Saraswati Devi vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Amareshwar Sahay, J.—Heard the parties.

In this writ application, the prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 26.12. 2000 passed by the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi, in S.A.R. Case No. 231 of 1988-89 contained in Annexure-4, by which the order for restoration has been passed in respect of the land measuring an area of 7 Kathas, out of plot No. 614 of khata No. 3, situated at Mouza Hesal, in the district of Ranchi, in favour of respondent No. 5 u/s 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act and for quashing the order dated 3.9.2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, dismissing the S.A.R. Appeal No. 177 of 2000-2001 contained in annexure-5 and also for quashing the order dated 29.4.2002 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, in S.A.R. Revision No. 25 of 2002 contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application.

An application u/s 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act was filed by the husband of respondent No. 5 late Somra Oraon. claiming restoration of the land in question stating, inter alia, that he acquired the said land by purchase through registered deed of sale in the year 1937 and came in possession thereof, but was illegally dispossessed of the same by the petitioner.

After notice, the writ petitioner appeared before the Special Officer and filed his show cause stating therein that the land in question was acquired by Jangli Lohra, father of the petitioner in the year 1930 from the ex-land-lord on account of service rendered by her father and thereafter the petitioner constructed house and other structures over the same and remained in possession so long alive and after his death the petitioner being the only daughter inherited the same and came in possession thereof and her name was duly mutated in the office of the Municipal Corporation and she is regularly paying tax in her own name. There was no contravention of any of the provisions of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act.

Challenging the orders of the Lower Courts contained in Annexures-4, 5 & 6, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act is not applicable in a case of transferee, meaning thereby that an application for restoration u/s 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, can only be filed by the transferor, who is a raiyat and schedule tribe, not by the transferee. In support of his submission, he relied on a decision of the Division Bench of Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Ram Chandra Sahu alias Ram Prasad Sahu alias Kolha Sahu v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1990 (1) BLJ 124, He further argued that the application for restoration was filed in the year 1988-89, whereas the petitioner acquired the said land in the year 1930 from the ex-land-lord, therefore, it was filed after about 58 years from the date of transfer and, as such, the application for restoration was hopelessly barred by limitation. He further contended that the land in question is situated within the Ranchi Municipal Corporation area and its nature is of Chhaparbandi, whereas Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act does not apply in the case of Chhaparbandi land.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, but the points raised by the petitioner have not specifically been replied. However, the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below have been supported.

Though respondent No. 5 has appeared through her counsel, but no counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf.

The Division Bench of the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Ram Chandra Sahu alias Ram Prasad Sahu alias Kolha Sahu v. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra) has held that Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act will only apply to a case, where such a raiyat belonging to any of the schedule tribe makes a transfer contrary to the provision of the Act or who is persuaded to execute a deed of transfer by fraudulent method. In the said judgment if has further been held on the facts of the case that no relief could be granted to respondent No. 5 u/s 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, as the respondent No. 5 had not transferred any land to any one, which was in breach of the provisions of the Act or was procured by any fraudulent method. Section 71-A does not contemaplate an application by a transferee. It only contemplates an application by transferor, who is a raiyat and member of a schedule tribe.

In the present case also respondent No. 5 has claimed that the land was acquired by way of purchase by registered deed of sale of the year 1937 executed by Ishwar Dayal Singh in favour of Mahali Oraon and who was the grand son of Mahali Oraon. Therefore, it is clear that the respondent No. 5 is also claiming the land by way of purchase by registered deed of sale. The present case is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Ram Chandra Sahu alias Ram Prasad Sahu alias Kolha Sahu v. State of Bihar and Ors. (supra).

For the reasons aforesaid, it is held that the application filed by the husband of the respondent No. 5 for restoration of the land in question u/s 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Art was not maintainable. In view of the fact that this writ petition is being allowed on the first point itself and, as such, it is not necessary to discuss the other points raised by the parties.

Consequently, this application is allowed. The order dated 26.12. 2000 passed by the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi, in S.A.R. Case No. 231 of 1988-89 contained in Annexure-4, order dated 3.9.2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, dismissing the S.A.R. Appeal No. 177 of 2000-2001 contained in annexure-5 and the order dated 29.4.2002 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, in S.A.R. Revision No. 25 of 2002 contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application are hereby quashed.

There will be no order as to the costs.