The court established that evidence of chaparbandi status must be considered in administrative decisions regarding land restoration under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act.

JUDGMENT :

(ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.)

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“That the instant writ application is for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction from this Hon’ble Court for quashing the order dated 5.5.2003 passed by the respondent no.2 in Ranchi S.A.R. Revision No.73 of 2002 contained in Annexure – 4 affirming the order dated 3.6.2002 passed by the respondent no.3 in Case No.175 R15/97-98 contained in Annexure – 3 and the order dated 26.8.97 contained in Annexure – 2 passed by the respondent no.4 in S.A.R. Case No.222/90-91 passed by the respondent no.4 restoring the land in question under section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act in favour of the respondent no.5.”

Argument of the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per Second proviso of Section 71A of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 ( hereinafter referred to as CNT Act) where a substantial structure or building on holding is available prior to coming into force of Bihar Schedule Area Regulation 1969, it is open to the Deputy Commissioner to validate such transfer where the transferee either makes available to the transferor an alternative holding or portion thereof, as the case may be, of the equivalent value, of the vicinity or pays adequate compensation to be determined by the Deputy Commissioner for rehabilitation of the transferor.

4. The learned counsel has submitted that the order passed by the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation under Section 71 A of CNT Act itself reflected that the property was already converted into chaparbandi and the chaparbandi rent was being paid. The learned counsel has submitted that the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have wrongly observed that no conclusive document was produced to show that the property was chaparbandi.

5. The learned counsel has referred to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.5 and referred to paragraph 3 thereof wherein he has given the entire history of the land and has also annexed a copy of rent receipt dated 10.04.1953 showing that the amount of rent was fixed for the land as chaparbandi land. The learned counsel has also submitted that the private respondent no.5 has stated in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit that he will be satisfied if adequate compensation is given to him under second proviso of Section 71 A of CNT Act.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the order dated 24.01.2025 wherein at paragraph 3, it has been recorded as under:

“A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the private respondent no.5 which is on record stating that the land was mentioned as chaparbandi land and the rent receipt dated 10.04.1953 also shows that the amount of rent was fixed for the said land as chapparbandi. The document has also been annexed along with the counter affidavit.”

7. The learned counsel submits that vide order dated 24.01.2025 passed in this writ petition the learned counsel for the State was directed to seek instruction and file a response to the said counter affidavit filed by respondent no.5 and the counter affidavit was directed to be sworn by the concerned SAR Officer. The learned counsel has also submitted that a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed vide affidavit dated 30.04.2025 but the SAR Officer has not controverted the statements and the document filed by respondent no.5.

8. The learned counsel submits that as per the records, the fact is that the property became chaparbandi as back as in the year 1953 and rent receipt was also issued and this fact was also noticed by the SAR Officer while passing the order but not considered. This submission was also recorded by the SAR Officer while passing the order but still it was recorded that the property was transferred in 1974 without taking permission from the Deputy Commissioner.

9. The learned counsel has submitted that the petit