Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Charo Oraon, S/o. Late Libua Oraon - Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
L.P.A. No. 313 of 2020 With I.A. No. 5370 of 2020
Decided On : 20-03-2024
[APPEAL] - [Chotanagpur Tenancy Act] - [Sections 46, 71A, 72] - [The court discussed the provisions of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, particularly Sections 46, 71A, and 72, which govern the transfer and restoration of land rights for raiyats. Section 71A allows for restoration of land unlawfully transferred, but the application must be made within a reasonable time, interpreted as 30 years. The court emphasized the need for proper consideration of limitation issues and the requirement for evidence in determining the validity of the surrender deed, ultimately influencing the decision to remit the case for fresh adjudication.]
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over land ownership following the death of Barka Junga Oraon, whose property was inherited by his brother and subsequently by his nephews, Charo Oraon and Soma Oraon. They filed for restoration of land under Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, claiming the surrender deed was fraudulent. The appellate authority initially ruled in their favor, but this was later challenged in a writ petition, leading to the learned Single Judge quashing the appellate and revisional orders on grounds of limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned Single Judge erred in quashing the orders without remitting the matter for fresh consideration of the limitation issue, which had not been properly addressed by the lower authorities. The court emphasized that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact that requires evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in quashing the orders of the appellate and revisional authorities without remitting the matter for fresh adjudication on the issue of limitation. 2. Whether the issue of limitation was properly raised and considered by the lower authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the learned Single Judge's decision to quash the orders was improper as the issue of limitation had not been raised or considered by the lower authorities. The court reiterated that the application for restoration under Section 71A must be filed within a reasonable time, specifically 30 years, and that the matter should be remitted for fresh consideration to allow for evidence on the limitation issue.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashed the orders of the learned Single Judge, and remitted the matter to the original authority for fresh adjudication on both the merits and the issue of limitation, to be completed within six months.
JUDGMENT :
1. The appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 26.05.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.6152 of 2006, whereby and whereunder, the orders passed by the appellate authority dated 23.06.2006 passed in SAR Appeal No.202 R 15 of 2002-03 and order dated 10.10.2006 passed by the respondent no.2 in SAR Revision No. 60 of 2006 are held to be illegal since the same has been passed on non-consideration of the factual aspect as well as the legal aspect of the case, therefore, quashed and set aside.
Facts:
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made, which requires to be enumerated herein, reads as under:
The lands of Khata No. 16 total area 12.61 Acres in Village -Duru P.S. Bero District Ranchi stand recorded in the name of Barka Junga Oraon, Son of Gangia Oraon, who died issueless. The entire property of Barka Junga Oraon, Son of Gangia Oraon was inherited by his brother Bhukha Oraon. Bhukha Oraon died living behind a son Libuwa Oraon who inherited the property of Barka Junga Oraon, Son of Gangia Oraon after the death of Bhukha Oraon and Libua Oraon’s two sons Charo Oraon and Soma Oraon had inherited the Property of Barka Junga Oraon, Son of Gangia Oraon, who are the appellant in this case.
The appellant Charo Oraon and his brother Soma Oraon filed a restoration case under section71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Ranchi against Sk. Karu & others who are the Respondents, which was registered as SAR Case No.01/96. They did not appear in spite of service of notice. Hence the prayer of the Petitioners was allowed ex-parte by order dated 17.01.1997 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi.
The Respondent Sk. Karu preferred an Appeal No. 11R-15/97-98 which was allowed by order 13/01/1999 and the case was remanded back to the court of Special officer, Scheduled Area Regulation Ranchi. Sk. Karu and others claimed the land in question measuring 5.49 acres out of plot nos. 73, 85, 102, 121, 730, 190, 520 and 1077 was surrendered by the recorded tenant by registered deed of surrendered dated 16/01/1942 to the Ex-land lord. The ex-landlord subsequently settled the same by Sada hukumnama in favour of Sk. Ibrahim father of Sk. Karu, Sk. Mubarak and Sk. Rashid and also in the name of Sk. Ishak father of Sk. Zahir and Sk. Phulsarat. Thus, they have validly acquired the land in question. The Special Officer Ranchi was pleased to dismiss the prayer of the petitioner Charo Oraon vide order dated 30.12.2002 passed in S.A.R. case No.01 of 1996-97, without properly appreciated the fact that the alleged Surrendered deed was not Executed by the recorded tenant and the same was nothing but a forgery committed by the Ex-land lord and Sk. Ibrahim and Sk. Ishak and is ab initio void.
The appellant Charo Oraon preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Special officer dated 30.12.2002, before the Additional Collector Ranchi vide SAR Appeal No. 202R-15/02-03, which was allowed by order dated 23.06.2006, finding that the alleged surrender deed has not been executed by the recorded tenant Barka Junga Oraon son of Gangia Oraon, rather the same has been executed by one Junga Oraon son of Dugia Oraon. The Additional Collector allowed the appeal and ordered to deliver portion of the land to Petitioner Charo Oraon.
The Respondent Sk. Karu & others challenged the order of Additional Collector Ranchi by preferring a revision SAR Revision No. 60/2006 before the Commissioner South Chotanagpur Division, which was rejected by order dated 10/10/2006 and order of Additional Collector was upheld.
Being aggrieved, the respondent nos.5-9 preferred writ petition being W.P.(C) No.6152 of 2006 challenging the order dated 23.06.2006 passed by the appellate authority and order dated 10.10.2006 passed by the revisional authority which had been allowed and the both the aforesaid orders had been quashed and set aside. Hence, the instant letters paten
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 interpretation and application of the statutory limitation period under Section 46(4-A) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 for filing res....
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
