Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, JJ.
Bibhuti Bhushan Oraon S/o Late Mahadeo Oraon – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 140 of 2018, Cross Objection No. 3 of 2019
Decided On : 24-08-2023
Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 - Section 71-A - Proviso (2) - Proviso (3) - Compensation - Restoration of Land
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an appeal for condonation of delay in filing a Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A.) and an application for deleting the name of a deceased appellant from the Memo of Appeal. The main appeal and cross objection arose from a common order passed by the writ Court in two writ petitions related to the restoration of land under Section 71-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the restoration application was not barred by limitation and that the appellants were not entitled to claim the return of the entire land. It also held that the appellants were not entitled to equivalent alternative land and rejected their plea for further modification in the rate of compensation. The court directed the quantification and payment of compensation to the appellants.
Issues: Condonation of delay, deletion of deceased appellant's name, restoration of land under Section 71-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, adequacy of compensation, entitlement to equivalent alternative land
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 71-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, specifically Proviso (2) and Proviso (3), and the adequacy of compensation for the restoration of land. It also considered the issue of limitation and the entitlement of the appellants to claim return of the entire land.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and cross objection, directing the quantification and payment of compensation to the appellants.
ORDER :
I.A. No. 8207 of 2018 in L.P.A. No. 140 of 2018
1. This application has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 76 days in filing L.P.A. No. 140 of 2018.
2. There is no opposition by the respondents to this application.
3. In view of the averments made in this application, I.A. No. 8207 of 2018 is allowed.
I.A. No. 7614 of 2023 in L.P.A. No. 140 of 2018
4. I.A. No. 7614 of 2023 has been filed by the appellants for deleting the name of the appellant no. 1 Ashok Oraon from the Memo of Appeal who died on 12th October 2022 during the pendency of the present appeal. In this application, the appellants have stated as under:
“3. That the appellants state that during the pendency of the instant LPA the appellant no. 1 died on 12.10.2022 leaving behind no male legal heir.
4. That the appellants are governed by Oraon customary law applicable for tribals wherein daughters are not entitled for inheritance in the ancestral property.
5. That it is stated that since the brothers of deceased appellant no. 1 are already on records and arrayed as appellant nos. 2 to 6 and the property in question will be devolved among them.”
5. In view of the averments made in this application, I.A. No. 7614 of 2023 is allowed at the risk of the appellants.
6. Let necessary corrections be made in the memo of parties in both the cases during course of the day with red ink.
L.P.A. No. 140 of 2018 with Cross Objection No. 3 of 2019
7. The present Letters Patent Appeal and the Cross Objection are taken up for hearing on merits with the consent of the parties.
8. L.P.A. No. 140 of 2018 and Cross Objection No. 3 of 2019 arise out of the common order dated 20th November 2017 passed by the writ Court in W.P. (C) No. 5458 of 2005 and W.P. (C) No. 507 of 2006. Both the writ petitions arise out of the same proceedings being SAR Case No. 294 of 1981.
9. The writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 507 of 2006 was filed by Shanti Sinha (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) who is the cross objector in the present proceeding and the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 5458 of 2005 was filed by the present appellants.
10. The disputed property involved in the present case is appertaining to R.S. Khata No. 16, Plot Nos. 657 and 658, Area-12 Kathas, Village-Kathargonda, PS-Gonda, District-Ranchi.
11. The father of the appellants claiming to be the descendants of the recorded tenant filed an application under section 71-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (in short “CNT Act”) for restoration of land which was registered as SAR Case No. 294 of 1981 and allowed vide order dated 10th June 1983.
12. Against the said order dated 10th June 1983, SAR Appeal No. 89 of 1983-84 was filed by the private respondent and vide order dated 22nd May 1986 the matter was remanded to the original authority mainly on the ground that there was a substantial structure on the land.
13. Against the order of remand dated 22nd May 1986, the respondent preferred a revision being SAR Revision No. 380 of 1986 which was dismissed on merits vide order dated 8th December 1986. Against the order dated 8th December 1986, a writ petition being CWJC No. 273 of 1987(R) was filed by the private respondent and another which was dismissed on merits vide order dated 27th November 1996. However, since the appellate authority had remanded the matter for fixation of compensation the Court was of the view that the compensation was required to be fixed in terms of proviso (3) to section 71-A of the CNT Act. Against the writ Court’s order, L.P.A. No. 5 of 1997 was preferred by the private respondent which however was withdrawn. The private respondent filed Civil Review No. 64 of 1997 before the writ Court for a modification in the order dated 27th November 1996 only to the extent that the compensation was required to fix in terms of the proviso (2) to section 71-A of the CNT Act and not under the proviso (3) to the Act as mentioned in the aforesaid order. The civil review petition was allowed to the
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 71-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, particularly regarding the restoration of land and the ad....
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 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 principles of estoppel and res judicata are based on public policy and justice. Doctrine of res judicata is often treated as a branch of law of estoppel though these two doctrines differ in some ....
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
