Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.B.Sanyal, J.
Murlidhar Gupta
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 716 of 1981 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 06, 1986
CHOTANAGPUR TENANCY ACT - SECTION 46, 71-A - RESTORATION OF LAND - APPLICABILITY TO CHAPPARBANDI LAND - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners purchased portions of a plot of land in Ranchi from Komal Khess and his mother Mudit Khess, who inherited the land from John Khess. Susana Khess, claiming to be another widow of John Khess, also claimed an interest in the property, leading to a partition suit and a final decree allotting the disputed land to the petitioners. Komal Khess later filed an application for restoration of the land under Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, which was allowed by the revenue authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act does not apply to chapparbandi land, which is non-agricultural land. The court found that the revenue authorities erred in allowing the restoration of the land without considering whether it was agricultural or non-agricultural.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act applies to chapparbandi land? 2. Whether the revenue authorities erred in allowing the restoration of the land without considering whether it was agricultural or non-agricultural?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act applies only to the transfer of land belonging to a raiyat, which is agricultural land. Chapparbandi land is non-agricultural land and is therefore not subject to the provisions of Section 71-A. 2. The revenue authorities erred in allowing the restoration of the land without considering whether it was agricultural or non-agricultural. The character of the land is a crucial factor in determining the applicability of Section 71-A.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders of the revenue authorities allowing the restoration of the land and remanded the case for reconsideration, directing them to determine whether the land is agricultural or non-agricultural.
S.B.Sanyal, J.
1. This is an application for quashing Annexures 20, 21 and 22 by which the revenue authorities have allowed the land to be restored under Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act.
2. The land in dispute bears municpal holding No. 215 in ward No. 6 of Ranchi Municipality standing on M. B. Plot No. 6 situated at Kantatoli Chowk, Purulia Road, Ranchi, belonging to the petitioners. One Benjamin Khess died leaving behind his only son John Khess, who inherited the properties left by his deceased father including the property in question. John Khess also died leaving behind his widow Mudit Khess and Son Komal Khess, who is said to have inherited the disputed property and came in possession of the same. Petitioner No. 1 purchased a portion of M. B. Plot No. 6, old holding No. 330 corresponding to new holding No. 215 within Ward No. 6 of the Ranchi Municipality, by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 24 January 1963 from Komal Khess (respondent No. 5) and his Mother Mudit Khess (Annexure 4). Petitioner No. 1 after purchase got his name mutated in the office of the State of Bihar in Mutation Case No. 207 Rule 27 of 1963-64 and is paying rent to the State of Bihar. Petitioner No. 1 also got his name mutated in the office of the Ranchi Municipality and is paying taxes regularly to the Ranchi Municipality. The rent receipts are Annexures 5 (a) to 5 (e). It is said that one Susana Khess, claiming to be another widow of John Khess, claimed her interest in the property which resulted, in petitioner No 1s instituting a suit for partition bearing Partition Suit No. 3 of 1969 in the court of the Special Subordinate Judge, Ranchi. Against Komal Khess, Mudit Khess and Susana Khess The suit, however, was compromised between the parties and a final decree was prepared on 24 May, 1972 and the land purchased by petitioner No. 1 was allotted to him (Annexure 6). A deed of release was also executed by Susana Khess, Mudit Khess and Komal Khess in favour of petitioner No. 1 and they relinquished all their right, title and interest, if any, with respect to the property purchased by petitioner No. 1 by virtue of the registered deed of sale dated January 24, 1963 (Annexure 7). On August 9, 1972 petitioner No. 1 purchased 1 katha, 8 chataks and 13 square feet out of the said plot, part of the same Municipal holding, from Komal and Mudit. His name was also mutated in the office of the State of Bihar in Mutation Case No. 143 Rule 27 of 1973-74 (Annexure 9). Petitioner No. 1 is also paying rent to the State of Bihar (Annexure 1-C). He also got his name mutated in the office of the Ranchi Municipality and is paying taxes in his own name (Annexure 10/a). It is said that petitioner No. 1 constructed a substantial structure at a cost of more than Rs. 60,000 before coming into force of Regulation 1 of 1969.
3. Petitioner No 2 on his part purchased 3 kathas, 8 chataks and 30 square feet of land alongwith the house standing on a portion of plot No. 6, being sub-plot No. 6/c, of the same holding from Komal Khess and his wife Sushila Khess by virtue of a registered sale deed date 20th August, 1973, for a consideration of Rs. 6,000 (Annexure 11). Petitioner No. 2 similarly got his name mutated in the office of the State of Bihar in Mutation Case No. 338 Rule 27 of 1079-80 (Annexure 12) and also got his name mutated in the municipal records and is paying taxes in his own name (Annexure 13).
4. Petitioner No. 3 by a registered sale deed dated August 10, 1979 purchased 35 karies of lard alongwith the house standing on a portion of the said plot appertaining to the said ward for a sum of Rs. 7,000 in Mutation Case No. 706 Rule 27 of 1979-80 and is paying chapparbandi rent to the State of Bihar. He is also paying municipal taxes (Vide Annexures 15, 16, 17, 17/a and 18).
5. It may be stated here that Susana Khess before selling that part of the land to petitioner No. 3 obtained permission under Sec.26 of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
