Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.B.Sinha, J.
Ansar All
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 532 of 1991 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 9, 1993
SANTHAL PARGANAS TENANCY (SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS) ACT, 1949 - SECTION 35 - INTERPRETATION - VOID SALE DEED - JURISDICTION OF AUTHORITIES UNDER SECTION 35 - SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners purchased a tank and a ridge of land in Santhal Parganas, which were recorded as lakhraj land. The respondents, claiming to be 16-anna raiyats, filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 35 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949, for cancellation of the sale deed, alleging that the sale violated the provisions of the Act. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate allowed the application, and the Commissioner dismissed the petitioners' revision application.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the authorities under Section 35 of the Act had no jurisdiction to annul the sale deed. The Court observed that Section 35 prohibits the settlement of water reservoirs and channels for purposes other than irrigation, bathing, washing, or drinking, and the bringing of such water bodies under cultivation. However, the tank in question had already been settled and was recorded as lakhraj land. The Court also held that the authorities exceeded their jurisdiction by holding that the sale deed was void under Section 35, as they themselves had held that the sale could not be annulled under that provision.
Issues: 1. Whether the authorities under Section 35 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949, had jurisdiction to annul a sale deed of a tank and a ridge of land that were recorded as lakhraj land? 2. Whether the sale deed was void under Section 35 of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The authorities under Section 35 of the Act had no jurisdiction to annul the sale deed because Section 35 prohibits the settlement of water reservoirs and channels for purposes other than irrigation, bathing, washing, or drinking, and the bringing of such water bodies under cultivation. However, the tank in question had already been settled and was recorded as lakhraj land. 2. The sale deed was not void under Section 35 of the Act because the authorities themselves had held that the sale could not be annulled under that provision.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned orders of the authorities under Section 35 of the Act.
S. B. Sinha, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.4.1988 passed by the Additional deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj in revenue Misc. Revision No.23 of 1987-88 as contained in Annexure 12 to the writ application as also the order dated 29-5-1989 passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana in Revenue misc. Case No.24 of 1988-89 as contained in Annexure 13 thereof.
2. The fact of the matter lies in a narrow compass.
3. The lands in question involved in this writ application are plot numbers 1445 which is a lank and measuring 16 bigha, 3 kathas and 13 dhurs and plot No.1445/1789 which has been recorded as puratan path measuring 3 bigha 5 kathas and 9 dhurs; thus in total measuring 14 bighas 19 kathas 12 dhurs. The petitioners contend that their predecessor in interest were zamabandi Raiyats of Mauza Chanchi, sitesh Nagar. According to the petitioners, Rani Jyotirmay Devi who was one of the landlords granted settlement to one Nand Lal Ghosh in respect of plot No.1445. One binayandra Chandra Pandey and Amrendra Chandra Pandey purchased lakhraj plot No.1445. It is also stated that the aforementioned Binayan-chandra Pandey and Amrendra chandra Pandey took settlement of plot Nos.1445/1789, the ridge or bhind of tank of plot No.1445 from rani Jyotirmayee Devi. The said lands ultimately, devolved upon Prasunendra chandra Pandey, son of Binayandra chandra Pandey as allegedly Amrendra chandra Pandey died issueless. The petitioners purchased the lands in question by reason of a deed of sale dated 22-2-1974 as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application.
4. The petitioners have contended that the aforementioned plots were wrongly recorded under Anawali Khata no.647 and an objection to the said errors was filed by the recorded tenant before the revenue authorities. By an order dated 26-7-1929 the Assistant settlement Officer, Pakur, directed that necessary corrections be made. The relevant orders are contained in Annexures 4/a and 5/a to the writ application. The petitioners have further contended that their names were mutated in the office of the State of Bihar and rent was also fixed by the Revenue authorities.
5. The respondents 4 and 8 purported to have filed an application against the petitioners for cancellation of the said deed of sale before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pakur, purported to be under Sec.35 of the Santhal parganas Tenancy (Supplementary provisions) Act on 10-5-1982 on their behalf as also on behalf of 16 annas raiyats on the ground that the lands had been recorded as Anawali Khata. By reason of an order dated 8-11-1985 the subdivisional Magistrate, Pakur, rejected the claim of the said respondents in revenue Misc. case No.38 of 1982-83. Against the said order, the aforementioned respondents filed a revision-application purported to be in terms of Sec.59 (1) of the Santhal parganas Tenancy (Suplementary provisions) Act, 1949, for cancellation of the aforementioned deed of sale. By the impugned order dated 28-4-1984 as contained in Annexure 12 to the writ application, the said revision application was allowed. The petitioners filed a Revision application in the court of learned Commissioner who by reason of his order dated 29-5-1989 dismissed the same.
6. The petitioners in this writ application have contended that they have never objected to the raiyats using the water of the tank for irrigation, bathing or drinking purposes. Further, in the supplementary affidavit it has been contended that the land in question is a raiyati land and has never been used for agricultural, bathing and drinking purposes for the last over hundred years. It has been contended that the lands in questions are transferable and saleable lands as would be evident from the report of the Karmchari which is contained in annexure 24 to the supplementary affidavit.
7. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, however, it has been contended that the lands in question belonged to the State of Bihar
AI
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
