Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ.
Arthor Capton, s/o Late Pritam Capton – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and ors. – Respondents
L.P.A. No. 146 of 2023
Decided On : 12-06-2024
C.N.T. Act - Land Rights and Restoration - Sections 46, 71-A - The Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act (CNT Act) aims to protect the land rights of Scheduled Tribes, prohibiting land transfers to non-tribals. Section 46 mandates prior approval from the Deputy Commissioner for any transfer of land between tribals. Section 71-A empowers the Deputy Commissioner to restore possession of land unlawfully transferred. The court emphasized the importance of these provisions in safeguarding tribal land rights, concluding that the Deputy Collector's order for restoration was justified despite procedural errors regarding plot references, as the underlying intent of the law was to protect tribal interests.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over land in village Kalimati, originally recorded in the name of a Scheduled Tribe individual, Sine Masi Reven. After his death, a fraudulent claim was made by Marshel Aind, who falsely represented himself as a successor to transfer the land to the petitioner. The petitioner, having occupied the land since 1982, contested the restoration claim made by Marshel Aind under Section 71-A of the CNT Act, which was dismissed by various authorities, leading to the current appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Deputy Collector's order for restoration was valid despite the appellant's claims of not being in possession of the specific plots mentioned in the restoration application. The court upheld the interpretation of the CNT Act, emphasizing the need for the Deputy Commissioner's permission for any land transfer involving tribal individuals, which was not obtained in this case.
Issues: 1. Whether a restoration application can be vitiated due to incorrect plot references. 2. Whether the Deputy Collector's order for restoration was justified despite the appellant's claims of possession over a different plot.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the CNT Act's provisions are designed to protect tribal land rights and that procedural errors should not undermine the intent of the law. The Deputy Collector's authority to restore land under Section 71-A is not negated by incorrect plot references, as the primary concern is the protection of tribal interests.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision to uphold the Deputy Collector's order for restoration of land to the rightful tribal claimant.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Prayer :
1. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 23.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 4727 of 2013, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been dismissed by declining to interfere with the order dated 10.06.2013 passed in SAR Revision No.07 of 2007.
Facts:
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated herein, reads as under:
The land of village Kalimati under khata no. 66 plot no. 1401 was recorded in the name of Sine Masi Reven s/o Paulush Reven one share and Anthony Sine Masi Marshel w/o Soman Aind one share who were the Uraon (Scheduled tribe) in the cadastral survey and settlement operation.
Sine Masih Reven died issueless, thereafter his nephew Masih Das Khakha inherited, succeeded / acquired the right, title & possession of above land of plot no. 1401 under khata no. 66 of village Parsudih.
One Marshel Aind fraudulently posted himself as successor of Sinee Masih Reven as his grand son (son of daughter of Sinee Maish) and proposed to transfer the above land of plot no. 1401 of village- Kalimatti to the petitioner and entered into an agreement for transfer of 10 Katha land of plot no. 1401 of village- kalimati and executed an agreement on 25.07.1982.
The petitioner after some times when the said Marshel Aind delay to execute sale deed enquired the matter and found that Marshel Aind was not the heirs or successor of Shine Masih Reven, he was fraudulently posted himself as successor of recorded tenant.
The writ petitioner let out the above premises of plot no. 1401 to Marshel Aind who was only the tenant of the petitioner Marshel Aind after few years fraudulently started to claim the above land of plot no. 1401 by claiming himself as legal heirs & successor of recorded tenant Sine Mahih Reven through his mother Agnesh Aind.
Smt. Agnesh Aind w/o Sugandh Das Aind and D/o Dumabi Ho @ Kili Sundi was not the heirs of recorded raiyat, recorded raiyat Shimne Masih reven was by caste "Uraon" and Agnesh Aind was previously by caste "Ho" and after marriage with "Munda" she become by caste "Munda".
Marshel Aind the original petitioner of restoration case claiming himself as heir of Smt. Gano Agnesh Aind @ Agnesh Aind and grandson/daughter of Sinee Masin Reven and claiming the land of above khata no. 66, plot no. 1401 of village recorded raiyat filed a case u/s 71A of the CNT Act.
The petitioner of aforesaid restoration case is not the heir or successor of recorded raiyat shine Masih Reven (Uraon) because he was belongs to caste "Ho" and subsequently married with "Munda".
On permission of the ancestor of respondent nos. 6 to 9 the petitioner after agreement constructed pucca boundary and four rooms thereon and used as residence of his family members.
Thereafter, the respondent filed the petition to Deputy Collector Land Reform, Jamshedpur for restoration of the above land under Section 71-A of the C.N.T Act in which he concealed the truth that he has no claim over the land in question and he fraudulently made agreement to transfer the said land in favor of the petitioner and there after the petitioner on consent of the respondent constructed the boundary & Pucca rooms thereon and since 1982 the petitioner is in occupation of the above premises.
Thereafter, the Circle Officer enquired the matter and submitted report to the D.C.L.R, Jamshedpur stating therein that the petitioner is in possession of the above land and the petitioner also has his houses thereon.
The petitioner had filed the rejoinder, claiming the land in question through Masih Das Khakha & also on basis of possession since long time. The petitioner also stated & proved by the evidences that the Marshel Aind is not the heirs or successor of recorded tenant Shine Masih Reven (Uraon) rather Marshel Aind is by caste "Munda" and his mother belongs to "Ho". The petitioner also stated that according to th
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 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 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
