Restoration proceedings under the Tenancy Act cannot be invoked after decades of unexplained delay, especially for transactions occurring before the introduction of specific statutory restrictions on alienation, particularly when the title has been confirmed by a final civil court decree.

18/18.03.2026

Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents.

2. It has been pointed out that so far as the respondent nos.4 to 9 are concerned, they are the proforma respondents and they are supporting the case of the petitioners.

3. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying therein for quashing of the order dated 22.11.1994 (Annexure-2) passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in S.A.R Appeal No.28 of 1986-87 whereby the said authority has been pleased to dismiss the appeals filed by the late father of the petitioners namely, Hare Krishna Mahto and Nagendra Mahto respectively under the provision of section 215 of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and affirmed the order dated 06.06.1986 passed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ghatshila in R.P. Case No.68 of 1985-86 whereby the petition filed under section 71 of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act has been allowed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ghatshila.

4. Ms. Amrita Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that Kanu Santhal @ Kanu Murmu was the father of the respondent no.3 and for the tenure holder (Pradhan) of the Mouza Kani Mahali and his tenure/interest was recorded in revisional survey of 1937 in khewat No.2 under Jagdish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb Zamindar of Dhalbhum Estate whose interest was recorded in khewat No.1 of the said village. She submits that the land in question formed part of the Khem land of Kunu Kanthal and he was holding the same for rendering service as Pradhan (Tenure holder) to the Zamindar of Dhalbhum Estate and he was entitled to retain the land and his khem land as long as he would be Pradhan of the village. The land was recorded in khata no.33 of mouza Kani Mahli and he was liable to pay rent for his tenure interest to the proprietor of Dhalbhum Estate and according to terms of Pradhani tenure, if at any time the Pradhan ceased to the Pradhan in that case, he will be evicted form this khem land. She further submits that kunu Santhal defaulted in making payment of the rent for the aforesaid tenure. The proprietor of Dhalbhum Estate filed a suit in the court of the Rent Suit Deputy Collector, Jamshedpur for ejectment of the Pradhan, Kunu Santhal from the Pradhani Tenure. The suit was registered as Rent Suit No.43/1937-38 and was decreed on 14.03.1938 and thereafter the proprietor obtained delivery of possession of the entire land of village Kani Mahali including the land in question recorded in Revisional Survey Khata No.33 on 16.01.1939 in Execution Case No.1312/1938- 39 in the court of the Rent Suit Deputy Collector, Jamshedpur, Dhalbhum. She further submits that said land came through the process of the court to the Zamindar and he was in Khas possession of the said land and while in such possession of the land by a registered patta dated 31.12.1939 he settled the same in raiyati right to the grandfather of the petitioner. The total area settled with Gurucharan Mahto grandfather of the petitioners was 15.95 acre description of which have been given in the said patta and thereafter the possession of the property was delivered to the grandfather of the petitioners who was in possession of the same on payment of rent to the proprietor of the Dhalbhum Estate. She next submits that the photocopy of the rent