Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.B.Sinha, J.
Jageshwar Teli
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 695 of 1987 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 23, 1991
CHOTANAGPUR TENANCY ACT - SECTION 48 - LIMITATION FOR RESTORATION OF LAND - 12 YEARS - SECTION 71(A) - LIMITATION FOR RESTORATION OF LAND - 30 YEARS - APPLICABILITY OF LIMITATION PERIODS - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the orders passed by revenue authorities allowing an application filed by the original respondents under Section 48 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, for restoration of possession of the lands in question. The petitioner contended that the application was barred by limitation as the period of limitation for restoration of Bhumidari lands under Section 48 was 12 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the period of limitation for restoration of Bhumidari lands under Section 48 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act was 12 years. The court further held that the amendment to Section 71(A) of the Act in 1986, which extended the period of limitation to 30 years for restoration of land belonging to members of Scheduled Tribes, had prospective operation and would not apply to applications filed prior to the amendment.
Issues: 1. Whether the period of limitation for restoration of Bhumidari lands under Section 48 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act was 12 years or 30 years? 2. Whether the amendment to Section 71(A) of the Act in 1986, which extended the period of limitation to 30 years for restoration of land belonging to members of Scheduled Tribes, had retrospective operation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the period of limitation for restoration of Bhumidari lands under Section 48 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act was 12 years. The court relied on the plain language of Section 48(4), which provided that an application for restoration of possession of Bhumidari land must be filed within 12 years from the date of dispossession. 2. The court held that the amendment to Section 71(A) of the Act in 1986, which extended the period of limitation to 30 years for restoration of land belonging to members of Scheduled Tribes, had prospective operation and would not apply to applications filed prior to the amendment. The court relied on the principle that statutes are presumed to have prospective operation unless there is a clear indication that they are intended to have retrospective effect.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned orders, and remitted the matter to the revenue authority for a fresh decision in accordance with the observations and directions made in the judgment.
S.B.Sinha, J.
1. In this application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the orders dated 22-4-1983 passed by respondent No. 5 as contained in Annexure-1 ; order dated 16-8-1986 passed by respondent No. 4 in Revenue Appeal No. 30-R 15 of 1983-84 as contained in Annexure-2 as also an order dated 29-12-1986 passed by respondent No. 2 in Revenue Revision Case No. 516 of 1986 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application ; whereby and whereunder the said respondents allowed an application filed by the original respondent Nos. 6 to 14 (respondent Nos. 6, 8 and 14 have since died) purported to be in exercise of their power under Sec. 48 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908.
2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.
3. An application was filed by the respondent No. 5 purported to be under Sec. 71(A) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act which was registered as Case No. 8 of 1970. In the said proceeding the petitioner, having been called upon, filed a show-cause contending inter alia therein that the lands in question being Bhumidari lands, the provisions of Sec. 71(A) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act have no application in relation thereto.
4. The respondent No. 5, however, directed restoration of possession of the lands in question in favour of the original respondent Nos. 6 to 14 by an order dated 22-4-1983 which is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the Said order which was registered as Scheduled Area Regulation Appeal No. 63-R 15 of 1975-76 and by an order dated 18-7-1978 the said appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the respondent No. 5.
5. Upon remand of the case, the respondent No. 5 registered the same as Bhumidar Case No. 10 of 1978 and the petitioner was asked to file show-cause again whereupon he filed his show-cause and adduced evidence.
6. The petitioner inter alia, contended that the period of limitation for restoration of the Bhumidari lands as contemplated under Sec. 48 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act being 12 years, the said application was barred by limitation but the respondent No. 5 by an order dated 22-4-1983 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application allowed the same.
7. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which was registered as Revenue Appeal No. 30 R-15 of 1983-84 and the respondent No. 4 by an order dated 16-8-1986 inter alia, held that the date on which the concerned respondents were allegedly dispossessed by the petitioners being not supported by any valid document, the application was not barred by limitation. The said order dated 16-8-1986 is contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application.
8. A revision application was preferred by the petitioner and by reason of the impugned order dated 29-12-1986, the said application was also dis missed at the stage of admission itself.
9. According to the petitioner, there was an earlier proceeding being M 8 of 1970 wherein a report was called for from the respondent No. 5 and the Circle Inspector, Ratu and in his report the Circle Inspector stated that the land belongs to Bhumidari Khewat No. 12/4 but the land measuring 46 decimals appertaining to Khata No. 438 of Village Pundag was recorded in the Bhujarat register and the said 46 decimals of land belongs to the State of Bihar.
10. According to the petitioner, Karia Munda, father of Pero Pahan. (Munda) (respondent No. 7) settled the lands in question along with his brother Chedia orally in the year 1938 ,wherefor a Sada hukumnama was issued in favour of his grand-father.
The said oral settlement was confirmed again in the year 1947 in respect of 46 decimals of land by a written instrument which is contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application.
11. Allegedly the aforementioned Karia Munda surrendered the land by a registered deed of surrender in favour of the then landlord as is evidenced by Annexure-5 to the writ applicaton; whereupon by way of abundant cau
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
