Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Manjul Prasad, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari.
For the Respondents: Mr. Bhaskar Trivedi, AC to SC-III, Ms. Nanda Kumari.

No, the judgment does not characterize the surrender and settlement as a sham transaction. Instead, it identifies specific legal infirmities rendering them invalid: (1) the surrender by Jatru Oraon (son of recorded raiyat Bocho Oraon) of joint family land (Khata No.102, including R.S. Plot No.1911, Village-Simalia) to the landlord via registered deed dated 23.09.1954 was unauthorized, as it involved only one co-sharer without consent of others and lacked prior written sanction of the Deputy Commissioner as mandated under Section 72(1) and (5) of the CNT Act (!) (!) (!) (!) ; (2) the subsequent permanent Chhaparbandi settlement of the land by the landlord to Shaildhari Lal via registered deed dated 20.12.1954, followed by mutation and rent payments, did not cure the initial defect, as no Deputy Commissioner permission was obtained under either Section 46(1)(a)(b) (prohibiting transfers like sale/gift without such permission for raiyati land) or Section 72 (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) ; (3) these violations enabled restoration proceedings under Section 71A, as the transactions contravened CNT Act restrictions on alienation of tribal/scheduled tribe raiyati land, with appellate and revisional authorities correctly identifying the absence of permission and invalid surrender (!) (!) (!) (!) . The High Court upheld this, rejecting claims of Chhaparbandi conversion (due to lack of evidence) or limitation/adverse possession (as ex parte original order lacked basis and issue not properly raised), emphasizing supervisory limits under Article 226 without re-appreciating facts (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . Thus, while the transactions circumvented Section 46 restrictions by bypassing required permissions (potentially via linked surrender-settlement), they were invalidated on statutory non-compliance grounds, not sham intent (!) (!) (!) .