Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Shanti Devi W/o Braj Nandan Prasad Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's land ownership and origin. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding lack of limitation and case precedents. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. state's position on the legality of land transfer. (Para 7 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. judicial acknowledgement of record and evidence. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. conclusion that the writ petition is dismissed. (Para 12) |
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
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.
The court emphasized the principle that interference with concurrent findings of fact should only occur if the authority acted without jurisdiction, in excess of its jurisdiction, or if the finding i....
The court emphasized the principle that restoration applications barred by res-judicata and limitation cannot be entertained, and that challenging permissions granted after a long lapse of time is im....
The Deputy Commissioner has the authority to entertain appeals under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, and allegations of fraud and misrepresentation can justify such appeals, reinforcing the principle t....
A stay order on land restoration is invalid if issued without authority; clear evidence of dispossession must be presented for jurisdictional compliance.
The court established that evidence of chaparbandi status must be considered in administrative decisions regarding land 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
