Claims for restoration under Section 71-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act must be filed within a reasonable timeframe; significant delays may bar relief despite assertions of fraudulent transfers.

ORDER :

RAJESH SHANKAR, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 25.08.2008 passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi-respondent no.5, whereby the appeal filed by Manohar Lal Choudhary (now deceased)- predecessor of the private respondents being S.A.R Appeal Case No.17 R 15/2008-2009 was partly allowed setting aside the order of restoration dated 05.02.2008 passed by the Special Area Regulation Officer, Ranchi under Section 71-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 with respect to the land of the private respondents i.e. respondent nos.8 to 10 appertaining to Khata No.99, Plot No.423, measuring an area of 08 decimals out of total area of 12 decimals, Mouza-Kamre, P.S.-Ratu, District-Ranchi (hereinafter be referred as ‘the said land’). Further prayer has been made for quashing and setting aside the order dated 11.11.2016 passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur, Ranchi-respondent no.3 in S.A.R Revision No.187 of 2008 upholding the order passed by the respondent no.5 in S.A.R Appeal Case No. 17 R 15/2008-2009. It is also prayed for confirming the order dated 05.02.2008 passed by the Special Area Regulation Officer, Ranchi-respondent no.6 in S.A.R Case No.934 of 2003-04.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nature of the land of the petitioner appertaining to Khewat No.10/11, Khata No. 99, Plot No.423, measuring an area of 12 decimals is recorded in the Khatian as “Bakasht Bhuinhari Mahtoi” in the name of Bhikha Oraon & others and the petitioner is the legal heir of the recorded Khewat holder. The private respondents came in possession of the said land in last 10-11 years by creating forge and frivolous documents. The petitioner filed a petition u/s 71- A of the Act, 1908 in the Court of the respondent no.6 against Manohar Lal Choudhary, Prabhunath Singh and Pradeep Singh with respect to the said land which was registered as S.A.R Case No. 934 of 2003-04. The respondent no.6 passed the order dated 05.02.2008 allowing the petitioner’s application as well as directing the respondent no.7-Circle Officer, Ratu, Ranchi to restore the possession of the said land in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, Manohar Lal Choudhary filed an appeal before the Respondent No. 5 which was registered as S.A.R Appeal No.17 R 15 of 2008-09. The appeal was disposed of vide order dated 25.08.2008 partly setting aside the order of the respondent no.6 with respect to restoration of the said land belonging to Manohar Lal Choudhary measuring an area of 08 decimals out of 12 decimals and the order for restoration of the rest 4 decimals of land belonging to Pradeep Singh and Prabhunath Singh was confirmed. The petitioner preferred revision before the respondent no.3 which was registered as S.A.R. Revision No. 187 of 2008, however, the same was dismissed observing inter-alia that the proceeding U/s 71A of the Act, 1908 was barred by limitation and accordingly the order dated 25.08.2008 passed by the respondent no.5 in S.A.R. Appeal No.17 R 15/08-09 was upheld.

3. It is further submitted that claim of the private respondents/their predecessor over the said land since 1953 that too on the basis of Sada Patta allegedly executed by Deba Oraon, Mahali Oraon and Karma Oraon, all sons of Bhikha Oraon, is illegal as “Bakast Bhuinhari Mahtoi” land is non-transferrable in nature which was donated by the villagers to the ancestors of the petit