Back
RAVI RANJAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
Surendra Hembrum, S/o. Late Sadhan Munda – Appellant
Versus
Shobha, W/o. Late Uday Saw – Respondent
What is the interpretation of "at any time" under Section 71A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act regarding the filing of an application for restoration of land? What are the implications of inordinate delay in filing an application for restoration of land under Section 71A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act?
Key Points: - The appeal is directed against an order of a learned Single Judge who quashed and set aside orders passed by revenue authorities allowing restoration of land (!) [20000310660003]. - The respondent filed an application for restoration of land under Section 71A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act after more than 50 years (!) (!) (!) . - The revenue authorities allowed the restoration application, which was affirmed in appeal and revision (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The writ petitioner challenged these orders, arguing that the application was filed after an inordinate delay of over 50 years (!) (!) . - The learned Single Judge interfered with the revenue authorities' orders, considering the application for restoration to be filed after an unreasonable delay (!) (!) . - The appellant argued that Section 71A of the CNT Act allows applications to be filed "at any time" and does not prescribe a period of limitation (!) (!) (!) . - The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Situ Sahu & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand and Others, which clarified that "at any time" does not permit filing after an unreasonably long time during which third-party interests might have come into effect [20000310660006][20000310660011]. - The court found that the inordinate delay of over 50 years in filing the application justified interference with the impugned orders (!) . - The appeal was dismissed, upholding the interference with the impugned orders due to the inordinate delay [20000310660014].
JUDGMENT :
I.A. No.431 of 2021
This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condoning the delay of 206 days in preferring the present appeal. However, vide stamp report dated 22.01.2021 it has been reported that the appeal actually is not time barred in view of the order dated 23.03.2020 and 06.05.2020 passed in suo motu Writ (Civil) No.03 of 2020 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
2. In that view of the matter, no order is required to be passed in this Interlocutory Application as the appeal is to be taken to have been filed within time.
3. I.A. No.431 of 2021 stands disposed of accordingly.
L.P.A. No.35 of 2021
4. The instant appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 26.05.2020 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.142 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the order dated 13.05.1998 passed in S.A.R. Case No. 164/1996-97 by which the restoration application preferred by the respondent No. 5/appellant has been allowed and the land in question having an area of 1.5 Kathas has been ordered to be restored in favour of respondent No. 5 and the order dated 29.11.05 passed in S.A.R. Appeal No. 110-R-15/1998-99 b
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
