Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 463
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, RAJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Haponmay Murmu, Daughter of Late Dheba Murmu and wife of Bhim Hansda - Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner - Respondent
L.P.A. No. 384 of 2021
Decided on : 02-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG III
For the Respondent:Mr. Rakesh Kr. Shahi, Advocate, Mr. Ashish Verma, Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha, Mr. Rajesh Lala, Mr. Kumar Nishant, Advocate
Objections to land settlement records must be raised within a reasonable time, even in the absence of a specific time limit, to prevent undue hardship to third parties.
Headnote:(A) Santhal Parganna Settlement Regulation, 1872 - Regulation 25(3) - Appeals against dismissal of writ petitions challenging the order of the Commissioner regarding land rights - The court held that objections to settlement records can only be raised during fresh settlement proceedings and not after a significant delay. (Paras 23, 48, 54)
(B) Limitation - The court emphasized that even in the absence of a specific time limit in the regulation, objections must be raised within a reasonable time to avoid unnecessary harassment to third parties. (Paras 30, 48)
Facts of the case:
The appellants claimed land rights based on historical settlements, but their objections were dismissed due to significant delays and prior adjudications.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the dismissal of the appeals, affirming that the appellants could not re-agitate settled issues after more than 100 years.
Issues: The main issues included whether objections could be raised after such a long delay and the interpretation of 'fresh settlement' under Regulation 25(3).
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of a time limit does not permit indefinite delays in raising objections, emphasizing the need for timely action to protect the rights of all parties involved.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. Both the appeals have been directed to be tagged together, as such they have been heard together and is being disposed of by this common order/judgment.
Prayer:
2. Both the appeals, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, have been directed against common order/judgment dated 15.09.2021 passed by learned Singh Judge in W.P.(C) No. 5118 of 2012 [subject matter of LPA No. 384 of 2021] and W.P.(C) No. 6675 of 2012 [subject matter of LPA No. 386 of 2021] whereby and whereunder the writ petitions preferred by the writ petitioners-appellants have been dismissed declining to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka.
Factual Aspect:
3. Brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition is as under:
4. In both the cases, before the writ Court since common order dated 27.06.2012 passed by learned Commissioner, Sonthal Pargana Division, Dumka was under challenge, as such for the sake of convenience, only the fact involved in one of the writ petitions [WPC No. 5118 of 2012] is taken herein.
5. It is the case of the writ petitioner-appellant that as per Sonthal Parganas Settlement Regulation, 1872 (Regulation No. 3 of 1872), for preparation of record of rights, the Settlement Officers have been given power to enquire into landed right under Regulation 12 of the Regulation, 1872 and records of rights have to be prepared in the form as prescribed under Regulation 13 of the Regulation, 1872 containing the nature and instance of each rights and interest held by each class of occupiers. The procedure for preparation of record of rights has also been provided in the said Regulation. After preparation, publication is there under Regulation 24 as per which, after six months of such publication the record of rights becomes final.
6. Accordingly within the Santhal Parganas, firstly Wood’s Survey & Settlement took place, which was followed by McPherson Settlement of 1905 and settlement was concluded in the locality in 1908 and thereafter Gantzer’s survey and settlement came in the year 1932.
7. Further, Regulation 25(3) of the Regulation, 1872 itself provides that despite final publication of the record of rights, the same can be reopened during fresh settlement i.e. during fresh preparation of record of rights.
8. It is stated that fresh survey and settlement proceedings for preparation of records of rights under the said Regulation started and therefore, in terms of Regulation 25(3) of the Regulation, 1872 the earlier entries were entitled to be reopened. Accordingly during preparation of the records of rights the petitioner filed objection with respect to the preparation of record of rights in respect of land comprised within Jamabandi No. 2 measuring 6 Bigha 7 Katha and 14 Dhoors contending inter alia that the ancestors of the petitioner [who are appellants herein] namely Fate Manjhi and Sona Manjhi were the recorded raiyats but the ancestors of the Respondent No. 5 and 6 had wrongly got their names entered during the earlier settlement. The same was registered as Settlement Correction Case No. 311/98. On being noticed the Respondent No. 5 and 6 appeared and filed their show cause denying the contention of the petitioner. The competent authority- the Charge Officer, Dumka, after hearing the parties vide order dated 21.3.2002 in Settlement Correction Case No. 311/98, rejected the petitioners’ application inter alia on the ground that the petitioner may approach before the appropriate court since the dispute relates to the entries made in McPherson and Gantzer’s survey and settlement.
9. It has further been pleaded that pursuant thereto the petitioner preferred Settlement Correction Appeal No.1/2002-2003 and 02/2002-2003 before the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Settlement Officer holding that Regulation 25(3) of the Regulation, 1872 clearly provides that entries made during the earl
