Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
Pranami Estates Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No.3768 of 2013
Decided On : 16-12-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 - Section 46, (1)(a)(b), (3), 71, 217, 72(5) - Restoration Of Land - Petition is under Article 226 of Constitution of India, wherein, direction has been sought for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing order passed by Deputy Commissioner, whereby and where under, order passed by Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi dismissing case of opposite parties (respondent no.5 to 8) for restoration of land in question as being not legal and valid and also barred by limitation, has been set aside by giving direction for restoration of land in favour of respondent nos.5 to 8 - Held, Court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction - One consequence of this is that Court will not review findings of fact reached by inferior Court or Tribunal even if they be erroneous - This is on principle that a Court which has jurisdiction over a subject-matter has jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right, and when Legislature does not choose to confer a right of appeal against that decision, it would be defeating its purpose and policy, if a superior Court were to rehear case on evidence and substitute its own findings in “certiorari” - In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases error amounts to an error of law - Writ jurisdiction extends only to cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals in excess of their jurisdiction or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or they act illegally or improperly in exercise of their jurisdiction causing grave miscarriage of justice - Thus, it is evident that scope of issuance of writ of certiorari is very limited and it can only be issued in case of order passed having jurisdictional error or suffers from patent illegality on face of it but no such ground has been made out – Petition dismissed.
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 (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
The instant writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein, the direction has been sought for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 14.12.2011 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in S.A.R. Appeal No.07 of 2010, whereby and whereunder, the order passed by the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi dated 09.02.2010 dismissing the case of opposite parties (respondent no.5 to 8) for restoration of land in question as being not legal and valid and also barred by limitation, has been set aside by giving direction for restoration of land in favour of the respondent nos.5 to 8 as also to quash the order dated 25.05.2013 passed in S.A.R. Revision No.186 of 2011 by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, by which, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, has been confirmed.
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading require to be enumerated which reads hereunder as:
Respondent nos.5 to 8 filed an application for restoration of land pertaining to land bearing R.S. Plot No.1911 of Khata No.102, situated at Village-Simalia, P.S. Ranchi (now Ratu), District-Ranchi registered as S.A.R. Case No.317 of 2007-08 against Nilika Lal, wife of Shaildhari Lal and Sanjeev Tandon Lal, son of Shaildhari Lal.
The Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi has passed an order on 29.08.2008 which according to the writ petitioner is an ex-parte order since the order has been passed without service of notice upon the opposite parties herein i.e., Nilika Lal and Sanjeev Tondon Lal. The writ petitioner after coming to know about the said order had filed an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C. for being impleaded as opposite party in the aforesaid proceeding as also prayed for recall of the writ of delivery of possession.
The claim of the writ petitioner is that the proceeding, which was initiated by the Special Officer, was misconceived and not maintainable since there is no contravention of either Section 46 or any other provisions of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as C.N.T.) Act, 1908 nor any fraudulent method has been adopted as also the case of the opposite parties barred by limitation and adverse possession.
The other ground has been taken that the land under proceeding is Chhaparbandi created by virtue of registered deed dated 20.12.1954 and Chhaparbandi rent is also being realized, as such, no proceeding under Section 71 of the CNT Act would lie with respect to Chhaparbandi land.
It is the further ground of the writ petitioner that Jatru Oraon, son of the recorded raiyat Bodho Oraon @ Bocho Oraon, voluntarily surrendered 4.94 acres of land including the land under proceeding of Khata No.102, under Khewat No.2 situated at Village-Simalia, P.S.-Ranchi, Thana No.139, District-Ranchi to the then landlord Kumar Brajendra Nath Shahdeo, son of Late Thakur Mahendra Nath Shahdeo by virtue of registered deed of surrender being Deed No.5684 dated 23.09.1954 and put the landlord in possession of the same, after coming into the possession.
Thereafter, the landlord made permanent Chhaparbandi settlement of the aforesaid land to Shaildhari Lal (since deceased) by virtue of registered deed of Chhaparbandi settlement being Deed No.6739 dated 20.12.1954 and put the said settlee in possession of the same. The said settlee has mutated his name in the serista of State of Bihar through the Circle Officer, Kanke vide Mutation Case No.400R27 of 1956-57 and regularly paid the rent to the State.
Therefore, according to the writ petitioner, the said Shaildhari Lal continued in peaceful possession and uninterrupted possession of the land and after his death, his widow Nilika Lal and his son Sanjeev Tandon Lal inherited the property and came into the possession thereof and got their names mutated by succession in the serista of the State of Jharkhand through the Circle Officer, Kanke Anchal, Ranchi Vide Mutation Case No.1925R27 of 2005-06
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
