Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ.
Ram Sewak Sahu – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand –Respondent
L.P.A. No. 674 of 2018
Decided on : 21-12-2023
Chotanagpur Tenancy Act - Restoration of Land - Section 71A - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the applicability of Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, which deals with the restoration of land. The court focused on the requirement of substantial structure existing prior to the enactment of the Scheduled Area Regulation Act, 1969, as per the second proviso to Section 71A. The judgment also highlighted the legal principles related to the burden of proof and the reverse onus placed on the petitioners to establish possession and substantial structure prior to 1969.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the restoration of land under Khata No. 79, Plot Nos. 1116 and 1119 of Village Dighiya, P.S.-Bero, District-Ranchi under Section 71A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. The Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation passed an order under the second proviso to Section 71-A, directing compensation to be paid based on the existence of a substantial structure prior to the enactment of the Scheduled Area Regulation Act, 1969. The private respondents filed an appeal, which was allowed, and the revisional authority also declined to interfere with the appellate order. The writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed, leading to the instant appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Special Officer's order was based on conflicting reports regarding the period of construction, and there was no cogent evidence of a substantial structure existing prior to 1969. The court also noted that the compensation amount was paid to a party not involved in the proceeding, and the appellants failed to establish possession and substantial structure prior to 1969. The court held that the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge suffered from no infirmity.
Issues: The issues included the applicability of Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, the validity of the Special Officer's order based on conflicting reports, and the acceptance of compensation by a party not involved in the proceeding. The court also considered the burden of proof and the reverse onus placed on the petitioners to establish possession and substantial structure prior to 1969.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of substantial structure existing prior to the enactment of the Scheduled Area Regulation Act, 1969, as per the second proviso to Section 71A. The judgment also highlighted the legal principles related to the burden of proof and the reverse onus placed on the petitioners to establish possession and substantial structure prior to 1969.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the instant appeal, upholding the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 14.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6437 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order passed by the appellate as well as revisional authority by dismissing the writ petition.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which require to be enumerated herein, read as under:
The private respondents had filed an application for restoration of land under Khata No. 79, Plot Nos. 1116 and 1119 of Village Dighiya, P.S.-Bero, District-Ranchi under Chotanagpur Tenancy Act.
The plot no.1116 having area of 0.65 decimals of land of the aforesaid village was sold to Khaiya Sahu and Bodha Sahu in the year 1946 by Morha Oraon and Sukhu Oraon over which Bodha Sahu and Karu Sahu have constructed house and are residing over the same and Karu Sahu also constructed a house in the year 1948 on 0.03 acres of land over the said plot.
Two cases were instituted bearing SAR No. 94 of 1993-94 and SAR No. 95 of 1993-94 and the concerned authority allowed the application for restoration and on the basis of report of the Circle Officer indicating that the period of construction over the property was around 35 years old, permitted the petitioners to retain the property upon payment of compensation. Against this, the private respondents filed appeal before the appellate authority being S.A.R. Case No. 02 R-15/1998 – 99 and the appellate authority passed the order dated 24.06.2010 setting aside the order dated 28.01.1998 passed in SAR Case No. 94/1993-94 and SAR Case No. 95/1993-94.
Being aggrieved with the appellate order, the writ-petitioners filed revision being S.A.R. Revision No. 60 of 2010 but the said revision was also dismissed vide order dated 16.11.2010.
Being aggrieved with the same, the writ petitioners approached before this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6437 of 2010 which has also been dismissed declining to interfere with the order passed by the appellate as well as the revisional authority, against which the instant appeal has been preferred.
3. It is evident from the factual aspect as per the pleading made in the writ petition as referred hereinabove that two cases were instituted bearing Case No. 94 of 1993-94 and Case No. 95 of 1993-94 for the purpose of restoration of land being land under Khata No. 79, Plot Nos. 1116 and 1119 of Village Dighiya, P.S.- Bero, District- Ranchi under Section – 71A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908.
It needs to refer herein that the present appeal is only with respect to the order passed in connection with plot no. 1116 which.
The Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation has passed an order under second proviso to Section 71-A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act by coming to the conclusion that the land was having with the substantial structure existing prior to coming into effect of the Scheduled Area Regulation Act, 1969. Accordingly, the compensation was directed to be paid as per the statutory command as under second proviso to Section 71-A of the CNT Act, 1908.
The private respondents preferred an appeal being S.A.R. Case No. 02 R-15/1998 – 99 which was allowed by quashing and setting aside the order dated 28.01.1998 passed in SAR Case No. 94/1993-94 and SAR Case No. 95/1993-94.
The appellants-writ petitioners, being aggrieved with the order passed by the appellate authority, has preferred a revision being S.A.R. Revision No. 60 of 2010 which was dismissed vide order dated 16.11.2010 declining to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority against which the writ petition was filed being W.P.(C) No. 6437 of 2010 which has been dismissed against which the present appeal has been preferred.
4. Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior coun
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of substantial structure existing prior to the enactment of the Scheduled Area Regulation Act, 1969, as per the second proviso to S....
The Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act mandates that any transfer of land involving Scheduled Tribes requires prior approval from the Deputy Commissioner, and procedural errors in restoration applications do n....
The court established that the issue of limitation in restoration applications under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act is a mixed question of law and fact that requires proper consideration and evidence, a....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of tribal land rights under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and the necessity of following due process before vesting land upon....
Land does not automatically vest in the landlord upon a Raiyat's intestate death; procedural safeguards must be followed for restoration under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act.
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
