The C.N.T. Act allows for power under Section 71A to restore land despite delays, focusing on socio-economic rights, with limitations not strictly applying to restoration claims.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Writ Petition (C) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the prayer firstly, for issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/order (s)/direction (s) for quashing the order dated 11.09.2004 passed by Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi in S.A.R. Case No.15/2001-02/T.R. No.441/03-04, secondly, for quashing the order dated 23.06.2006 passed by Additional Collector, Ranchi in S.A.R. Appeal No.106R-15/04-05 and thirdly for quashing the order dated 19.05.2015 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in S.A.R. Revision No.57 of 06-07 whereunder respectively the application under Section 71 A of the C.N.T. Act for restoration of the said Khata No.17 and plot no.211 was allowed and the appeal and revision therefrom were dismissed.

3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, in charge used to realize Chaparbandi land revenue for the entire land in question vide case no.276/55-56; as the same was converted way back in the year 1945 by the then land lord. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 16.12.1964, the recorded tenants sold the land in favour of the vendor of the petitioner namely Ponpat Lal Daya Bhai Tank, by registered sale deed and the property was mutated by the Circle Officer, Ranchi. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner purchased only 4 katha of land by registered sale deed on 16.07.1991 from Ponpat Lal Daya Bhai Tank and petitioner is paying holding Tax to the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. The ancestor of the respondents namely Zethu Munda filed S.A.R. Case No.15-2001-02 which was allowed in terms of the order dated 11.09.2004. The petitioner filed S.A.R Appeal No.106R-15/2004-05 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 23.06.2006, thereafter, the petitioner filed S.A.R. Revision No.57 of 06-07 but the same was also dismissed on 19.05.2015.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Revisional Court failed to take into consideration the fact, that in the recital made in page 2 of the sale deed dated 16.02.1964, the land has been described as Chaparbandi land and this an admission on the part of the ancestors of the respondents, which is binding upon the respondents. It is next submitted that the Revisional Authority failed to take into consideration the fact that the transfer which was made in the year 1964 was brought into challenge for the first time in the year 2001-02 after a lapse of 37 years, which is barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court, in the case of Chaitu Oraon vs. State of Jharkhand in W.P.(S). No.3472 of 2001 dated 26.03.2004, wherein it was observed that the limitation for filing an application under Section 71A of the C.N.T., Act is 30 years.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Situ Sahu and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in (2004) 8 SCC 340 , paragraph-11 of which reads as under:-

“11. We are, therefore, of the view that the use of the words “at any time” in Section 71-A is evidence of the legislative intent to give sufficient flexibility to the Deputy Commissioner to implement the socio-economic policy of the Act viz. to prevent inroads upon the rights of the ignorant, illiterate and backward citizens. Thus, where the Deputy Commissioner chooses to exercise his power under Section 71- A it would be futile to contend that the period of limitation under the Limitation Act has expired. Th