Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J.
Abdul Rajjak @ Rajak Mian Churihar
Versus
Commissioner
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1610 of 1989 ;
Decided On : NOVEMBER 21, 1996
CHOTANAGPUR TENANCY ACT - SECTION 46 (4-A) - LIMITATION - RESTORATION OF LAND - APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF LAND BARRED BY LIMITATION - REVISIONAL COURT ERRED IN EXERCISING JURISDICTION TO ALLOW PRAYER OF RESPONDENT WITHOUT CONSIDERING LIMITATION ISSUE.
Fact of the Case:
Respondent No. 4 filed an application under Section 46 (4-A) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act for restoration of possession of land. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector (LRDC) dismissed the application finding that it was barred by limitation and the petitioner had perfected his title by adverse possession. The Additional Collector allowed the appeal and directed mutation of the name of the respondent No. 4. On revision, the Commissioner remitted the matter to the appellate authority for rehearing. On remand, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal holding that the case did not come within the purview of Section 46 (4-A) of the Act. The respondent No. 4 again filed a revision application which was allowed by the revisional court directing the petitioner to restore possession of the land to the respondent No. 4.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the revisional court erred in exercising its jurisdiction to allow the prayer of the respondent No. 4 without considering the question of limitation. The court also found that there was no iota of evidence to suggest that the land in question was ever settled with the respondent No. 4 or his brother.
Issues: 1. Whether the application for restoration of land was barred by limitation? 2. Whether the revisional court erred in exercising its jurisdiction to allow the prayer of the respondent No. 4 without considering the limitation issue?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 46 (4-A) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act provides that an application for annulling a transfer of land must be filed within a period of 12 years from the date of transfer. 2. In the instant case, the application filed by the respondent No. 4 did not specifically state the date of his dispossession by the petitioner. The respondent No. 4 also failed to file any official document to prove his claim, while the petitioner filed some documents which were not beyond suspicion. 3. The LRDC correctly appreciated the fact that if the land was actually with the respondent No. 4 and his brother by the ex-landlord in 1929 itself, there was no occasion for the Anchal Adhikari, Mandu to notify objection for the settlement of the same land. 4. The revisional court erred in not agreeing with the findings and observations of the appellate court and in allowing annulment of the transfer.
Final Decision: The High Court quashed the proceeding of Land Restoration Case No. 1/84 itself and the other orders including Annexures 4, 5, 6 and 7. The parties were at liberty to get their claim decided in accordance with law before an appropriate civil court, if so advised.
S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J.
1. The order dated 30.7.89 passed in Hazaribagh Land Restoration Revision No. 109 of 1987 has been impugned by the petitioner in this writ application.
2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated. In January, 1984 one Bisua Karamali, respondent No. 4 filed an application before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaribagh respondent No. 3 purportedly under Sec. 46 (4-A) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act for restoration of the possession of the lands measuring about 1.52 acres appertaining to plot Nos. 1033 and 1035 under Khata No. 1 of village Kujju, P.S. Mandu. district Hazaribagh in his favour. The said application is Annexure 1. It is stated in the petitioner that his lands were settled to him and his brother by ex-landlord in Sambat 1986 (i.e.. in the year 1929). On this application being filed, a Land Restoration Case No, 1/84 was registered. On being noticed petitioner filed a show cause contending, inter alia, that relief under Sec. 46 (4-A) was not available to the respondent No. 4 inasmuch as the application itself was barred by limitation and the petitioner having perfected his title by adverse possession even ingredients of Sec. 46 (4-A) are not applicable. Further case was that those Land were Gaijr Majarua Khas lands of the ex-landlord of which some portion was abandoned land. Those abandoned lands were reclaimed by the petitioner and by means of Hukumnama dated 5.6.1944 under Parwane No. 225 of 1944-45, the same was settle to the petitioner by the ex-landlord Petitioner continued in possession since then by paying rent to the ex-landlord and after vesting to the State of Bihar. Further, case is that the petitioner amalgamated other plots and surrounded the total area by a man height brick-wall. It is said that in the year 1969 the brother of respondent No. 4 filed.Title Suit No. 1493/69 against the petitioner in respect of the said lands but ultimately the suit was compromised on 19.12.69 in which the plaintiff, brother of respondent No. 4 admitted that the petitioner is in possession over the land in question for a period of more than 20 years. The show cause filed by the petitioner is Annexure 2.
3. The respondent No. 3, after considering the pleadings and documentary evidence available on records, rejected the prayer of respondent No. 4 by dismissing the said Land Restoration Case No. 1/84. The respondent No. 3 while dismissing the petition of respondent No. 4 has found that the petitioner was in possession over the lands since more than 12 years. This order dated 21.2.84 is Annexure 3. Respondent No. 4 appealed against the said order being Restoration Appeal No. 11/84 and his appeal was allowed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh respondent No. 2) by an order dated 22.7.85 directing to take necessary action for mutation of the name of the respondent No. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved the Commissioner, respondent No. 1 in Revision No. 118/85 and by an order dated 6.1.86/28.1.86, revision application was allowed and respondent No. 1 remitted the matter to the appellate authority i.e. Additional Collector for be-hearing. The revisional order is Annexure-5. On remand, respondent No. 2 dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 4 holding, inter-alia, that the case does not came within the purview of Section 46 (4-A) of the Act and the parties may get their respective plaint of settlement decided by a competent civil court. This appellate order on remand is dated 15.7.87 (Annexure 6). Again a revision application was preferred by the respondent No. 4 against the said appellate order which was registered as Land Restoration Revision No. 109/87. By the impugned order dated 31.7.89, the re visional court while allowing the appeal announced the alleged transfer of lands and directed the petitioner to restore the possession of the land in question to respondent No. 4. This order is Annexure 7 to this application.
4. While admitting this application on 7.9.89, this
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
