Back
TAPEN SEN
Niranjan Mahli – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
What are the conditions under which a "Bhuinhari" tenure can be transferred under Section 49 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act? What is the scope of Section 71-A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act in relation to "Bhuinhari" land transfers? What are the limitations on the State Government's power to annul a transfer under Section 49(5) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act?
Key Points: - The court quashed impugned orders that were found to suffer from want of jurisdiction, being misconceived, illegal, irrational, and arbitrary [20000020100020]. - A member of a "Bhuinhari" family can transfer their holding for any reasonable and sufficient purpose, provided the transfer is made by a registered deed with the Deputy Commissioner's written consent (!) (!) [20000020100013]. - The Deputy Commissioner must be satisfied that adequate compensation is tendered to the landlord before consenting to a transfer (!) . - The deletion of the word "and" in Section 49 by the 1929 amendment did not restrict "building purposes generally" to public purposes [20000020100012]. - Permission granted by the Deputy Commissioner in 1947 for the transfer of "Bhuinhari" land cannot be doubted by subordinate officers decades later [20000020100012]. - Section 71-A applies if there is a contravention of Sections 46, 48, 240, or other provisions of the Act, with the question of applicability considered by the Deputy Commissioner [20000020100012]. - A transfer made by a "Bhuinhari" tenure holder cannot be held to be a transfer by a "raiyat" to attract Section 71-A, as "Bhuinhari" landholders are tenure holders [20000020100013]. - The State Government can annul a transfer under Section 49(5) within 12 years if consent was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud [20000020100014][20000020100016]. - The application for restoration in this case was filed after almost 28 years, making it time-barred under Section 49(5) [20000020100014]. - Neither a Land Reform Deputy Collector nor an Additional Collector could order restoration of land, as this power is an exclusive prerogative of the State Government under Section 49(5) [20000020100019].
Tapen Sen, J.
1. In the instant writ application, the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 31.3.1990 (Annexure-4) passed by the respondent No. 4 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 2G-R 15/77-78 whereby and whereunder he held that although from the papers and records it appeared that the lands had been transferred to the petitioners after taking permission under Section 49 of the CNT Act, yet it was not clear as to whether such a permission could have been granted to a private individual in relation to a "Bhuinhari" land which could be transferred only for charitable and religious purposes. He accordingly remanded the matter to the respondent No. 3 for purposes of making a fresh enquiry and disposal in accordance with law. The petitioner is further aggrieved and prays for quashing the subsequent order dated 11.9.1995 (Annexure-5) passed by the respondent No. 3 in SAR case No. 69/76-77 whereby and whereunder on the basis of a report of the Circle Officer, Lohardaga made over to him on 13.11.1992, directed restoration of land in favour of the respondent No. 6. The petitioner further prays for quashing of the order dated 9.7.1996 (Annexure-6) passed by the respondent No. 4 in SAR App
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
