Back
2023 Supreme(Jhk) 206
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Faguni Devi W/o Late Basudeo Kandu (Dead) – Appellant
Versus
Mostt. Kesiya Domin W/o Late Jitan Dom – Respondent
S.A. No. 182 of 2010
Decided On : 15-02-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Manjul Prasad, Arbind Kr. Sinha, Praveen Kr. Verma, Baban Prasad, Akhauri Prakhar Sinha.
For the Respondent: Kundan Kr. Ambastha.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of obtaining permission from the Deputy Commissioner for the transfer of tribal land under Section 46(1) of the C.N.T. Act.
Headnote:
C.N.T. Act - Title Suit - Section 46(1) of the C.N.T. Act - Summary: The court discussed the provisions of Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act in detail and held that the sale deed executed in favor of the defendants was void ab initio as it did not have the required permission from the Deputy Commissioner for the transfer of tribal land. The court also considered the customary laws of the tribals and emphasized the importance of obtaining permission for the transfer of tribal land.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for title declaration, possession confirmation, and recovery of possession over a land, alleging illegal sale and mutation by the defendants. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, which was affirmed by the appellate court. The defendants appealed against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sale deed executed in favor of the defendants was void ab initio due to the lack of permission from the Deputy Commissioner for the transfer of tribal land. The court also emphasized the importance of adhering to the provisions of the C.N.T. Act in cases involving tribal land.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the validity of the sale deed executed in favor of the defendants and the possession and title over the disputed land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 46(1) of the C.N.T. Act, which requires permission from the Deputy Commissioner for the transfer of tribal land. The court emphasized the significance of adhering to the statutory provisions in cases involving tribal land.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the second appeal, stating that there was no substantial question of law involved and no perversity in the judgments of the trial court and appellate court.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
1. Heard Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Kundan Kr. Ambastha, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2, 3, 9 11 to 13.
2. Though, the second appeal has not been admitted as yet however, pursuant to earlier order notice was issued upon the respondents that is why Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent nos. 2, 3, 9, 11 to 13.
3. This second appeal has been filed being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment dated 05.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Hazaribagh, dismissing the Title Appeal No. 16 of 2006 and confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2006 (decree signed on 06.09.2006) passed by the learned Sub-Judge-II, Hazaribagh, decreeing the title Suit No. 76 of 1999.
4. The plaintiffs/respondents have instituted Title Suit No. 76 of 1999 for decree to declare the title over the suit land and confirmation of possession and if found dispossessed then a decree for recovery of possession as well as registered sale deed executed by Jitan Dom and Bindeshwari Dom in favour of the defendants with respect to schedule B land dated 12.03.1977 and for declaration of illegal false and invalid, mutation proceeding and issuance of rent receipt in favour of the defendants by the Anchal Adhikari to be declared illegal. The cost of the suit was also prayed. On contest the Sub-Judge-II, Hazaribagh has been pleased to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and held that the registered deed of sale executed on 12.03.1977 is illegal and void. Mutation proceeding and issuance of rent receipts in favour of the defendants is also declared illegal. Possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land was confirmed. However there was no order as to cost and thus judgment was passed on 23.08.2006 which was allowed. Aggrieved with the said judgment, the defendants/appellants filed Title Appeal No. 16 of 2006 and vide judgment dated 25.09.2010 the said appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the learned trial court was affirmed. Aggrieved with that the present second appeal has been filed by the defendants/appellants.
5. According to the plaint as disclosed in the judgment of learned courts the case of the plaintiffs/appellants in nutshell is that the plaintiffs are members of schedule caste and are also descendants of the recorded tenant late Ghutra Dom son of Makula Dom. It has been stated that Khata no. 32 and 33 of the village Badam, P.S. Barakagaon, District Hazaribag consists of several plots and an area of 1.21 acre is recorded in the name of Ghutra Dom. The said Ghutra Dom constructed his residential house on plot no. 1072 and 1088 of khata no. 32. The descendants of the said Ghutra Dom are living in the said house. After vesting recorded tenant and some of the plaintiffs paid rent to the ex-land lord and thereafter they paid rent to the state government for the suit land. It has been again stated that genealogy given in schedule “A” of the plaint will show the relationship between the plaintiffs and Ghutra Dom which is as follows:
Ghutra Dom had tow sons Jitan Dom and Bindeshwari Dom. All the plaintiffs are the descendants of said Jitan Dom and Bindeshwar Dom. Ghutra Dom died in the year 1959 while Jitan and Bideshwari Dom died in the year, 1975. The defendants without any right, title and interest illegally and unlawfully demolished the residential house of the plaintiffs and started making illegal construction on the suit land for which criminal case was initiated and the superintendent of police is also taking action in the said case in accordance with law. Defendants are claiming the suit land through forged and fabricated registered deed of sale dated 13.04.1977 and because Jitan and Bideshwari died in the year, 1975 hence, question of execution of registered deed of sale in the year 1977 does not arise. For the said sale deed no permission was taken from the Deputy Commissioner accor
