Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 924
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.
Harish Chandra Keshri, Son of late Lagnu Mahto - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No.3860 of 2014
Decided On : 27-06-2018
For the Petitioner:Mr. Kundan Kr. Ambastha, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Atanu Banerjee, G.A., Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwary, Advocate.
The power under Section 49(5) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 is vested in the State Government, and the applicability of the Limitation Act to such matters.
Headnote:
Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act - Cancellation of Permission - Section 49(5) - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an order cancelling the permission to transfer property under Section 49(5) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. The petitioner had obtained permission for the transfer, but the private respondent filed for restoration of the land, leading to a series of appeals and a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Deputy Commissioner's order cancelling the permission was without jurisdiction as the power under Section 49(5) is vested in the State Government. The court also held that the matter was not time-barred and the private respondent was entitled to the benefit of the Limitation Act.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to cancel permission under Section 49(5), applicability of the Limitation Act, and the proper authority to adjudicate on the cancellation of permission.
Ratio Decidendi: The power under Section 49(5) is vested in the State Government, not the Deputy Commissioner. The court also held that the matter was not time-barred and the private respondent was entitled to the benefit of the Limitation Act.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Deputy Commissioner's order and directed the case to be remitted to the Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, for appropriate decision within six months.
1. Heard Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Atanu Banerjee, counsel appearing for the respondent-State.
3. Heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Tiwary, counsel appearing for the private Respondent no. 5.
4. At the outset, counsel for the petitioner submits that the State of Jharkhand which has been impleaded as a party in this case has to be represented through the Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi, but this description is missing in the cause-title and accordingly, he seeks permission to make necessary correction in the cause-title in red ink during the course of the day. Counsel for the respondents have no objection to this prayer. Accordingly the petitioner is permitted to make the aforesaid additions in the cause title in red ink during the course of the day.
5. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
“a. For a direction for quashing the order dated 26.06.2014 (Annexure-7), passed by the respondent No.3, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Misc. Appeal No. 57 R 15 of 2012-13 in purported exercise of his power under Section 49(5) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, whereby and whereunder he has set aside the permission of sale granted to the petitioner in Permission Case No. 9 of 1990-91 on 5.2.1992 and has annulled the registered sale deed dated 2.11.1993 executed in favour of the petitioner by the private-respondent No. 5 Shibna Oraon and his co-sharers, which is in teeth of the judgment passed by this Hon’ble High Court in writ petition bearing W.P.C. No. 4475 of 2005, whereby and whereunder this Hon’ble Court allowed the writ petition of the petitioner by quashing the order dated 6.12.1996 of restoration passed under Section 71(A) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, by the respondent no. 4, Special Officer (Scheduled Area Regulation), the order dated 4.11.1999, passed by the respondent No. 3, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and the order dated 8.7.2005, passed by the respondent No. 2, the Commissioner, South Chhontanagpur Division, Ranchi; and
b. For a direction restraining the respondents from interfering with peaceful possession of the petitioner over the lands in question.”
6. Counsel for the petitioner submits as under:
(a) The matter relates to cancellation of permission to transfer of property under Section 49(5) of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. He submits that in order to set-up small scale industry for manufacture of tiles, an application under Section 49 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was filed before the respondent no. 3 – Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi for grant of permission to purchase plot No. 1721 measuring an area of 0.58 acres in village Tangar, district- Ranchi which was registered as Permission Case No. 9 of 1990-91 and pursuant to such application and after completing all the formalities, the permission was granted vide order dated 05.02.1992 for a consideration amount of Rs. 35,000/-.
(b) After completing further formalities and upon payment of consideration amount, the sale-deed in connection with aforesaid property was registered as registered-deed no. 8794 dated 02.11.1993 and the petitioner started his manufacturing unit and the property was also mutated in the name of the petitioner.
(c) An application under Section 71A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was filed by the private respondent for restoration of the same land which has been transferred vide registered sale-deed dated 02.11.1993 and the same was registered as S.A.R. Case No. 135 of 1995 and after hearing the parties, the Special Officer (Scheduled Area Regulation), Ranchi by order dated 06.12.1996 passed an order for restoration of land in favour of the private respondent against which, an appeal was filed which was numbered as S.A.R. Appeal No. 14 R 28 of 1998-99 which was dismissed vide order dated 04.11.1999.
(d) Against the dismissal of the said appeal, S.A.R. Revision Case No. 154 of 1999 was filed before the Commissioner, South Chhotan
