The court ruled that applications for restoration under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act must disclose essential details, and lack of such details, coupled with long-term possession by the opposing party, justifies dismissal.

Oral Order

10 th July 2023 

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

The original applicant who filed restoration application vide RM Case No.76 of 1994-95 is aggrieved of the order dated 12 th December 2018 passed in WP(C) No.5308 of 2013 by which the revisional order dated 16 th July 1997 has been quashed and thereby RM Case No.76 of 1994-95 stands allowed.

2. RM Case No.76 of 1994-95 was instituted on an application filed by Raghunath Singh Munda seeking restoration of the lands comprised under Plot Nos. 998, 1072 and 1076 in village Guchidih. The applicant who is the appellant before us claimed that the subject lands belong to his uncle who acquired ex-khuntkatti rights. Baijnath Mahto who was the opposite party in the aforesaid restoration case however laid a claim over the subject property on the ground that the subject property was given to him for converting it into cultivable land by way of Korkar. The restoration case was dismissed and the appeal preferred by the appellant vide Appeal No. 455 R15 of 1996-97 was also dismissed.

3. The appellate authority has held as under:

“Heard the learned Advocates of both the parties and perused the lower court record and the order passed by the learned lower court. It is an admitted fact of both the parties that the lands in question are the Bakast lands recorded in the name of Karam Singh Munda as Khewatdar of Khewat No. 3/3. The appellant has claimed that these are Mundari Khutkati lands and the lands cannot be transferred u/s 240 of the C.N.T. Act and therefore the respondents are liable to be ejected u/s 242 of the C.N.T. Act. The respondents have claimed that they have made these lands Korkar after getting the permission of the Khewatdar except Plot No. 1071 and therefore they are not liable to be evicted u/s: 64 of the C.N.T. Act. The appellant has cited the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court as reported in 1987 P.L.J.R. page 69. From the perusal of this ruling it is clear that there is no limitation for the ejectment of the transferee from the Mundari Khutkati lands.The respondent has taken the shelter of the ruling of Hon'ble High Court as reported in A.I.R. 1946 Patna page 105 and has claimed that according to this ruling nothing in section 240 prevents the landlord from giving his consent to a person who is not a Mundari Khutkatidar for converting the land into Korkar in the Mundari Khutkatidari tenancy. It has also been held by the Hon'ble High Court that if a landlord merely gives a consent to the creation of Korkar in a particular village or area to a particular person it does not amount to any transfer or alienation of any portion of his interest by the landlord. It has also been held that where such a person with the consent of the landlord actually creats Korkar in the land, section 64(3) is applicable and if no application to eject him is filed before the Deputy Commissioner within a period of two years when he started converting the land into Korkar, he cannot be ejected. This ruling of the Hon'ble High Court is quite relevant in this case. The respondents are in possession of the lands from more than 80 years. They have given proof to assert their claim that they have converted the lands in question into Korker except 25 decimals of plot No. 1071 which they are claiming to have purchased form one Gadadhar Pandey. The respondents have mentioned that their contention is almost recorded in the R.S. record of right in the Remarks column. The entry in the Remarks column recorded almost 60 years ago cannot be questioned now. Thus it is clear that the respondents, have converted the lands into Korkar except 25 decimals of plot No. 1071 and therefore the claim of the appellant on the lands in question except 25 decimals of plot No 1071 cannot be accepted.”

4. However, the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division at Ranchi by an order dated 27 th December 2003 has allowed SAR Revision No. 273 of 1997 on the ground that the restrictions under section 242 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 190