Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 609

2026 JHHC 9514
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
Shyam Murmu, son of Bhagat Murmu – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 631 of 2011
Decided On : 06-04-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kushal Kumar, Advocate, Ms. Khushi Mahendru, Advocate, Mr. Kshitij Priyanshu, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Vineet Prakash, A.C. to S.C.-IV, Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, Advocate

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kushal Kumar, Khushi Mahendru, Kshitij Priyanshu
For the Respondents: Vineet Prakash, Chandrajit Mukherjee

Customary practices deviating from general law must be strictly pleaded and supported by unambiguous evidence. Quasi-judicial authorities must respect the finality of prior civil decrees and ensure procedural fairness, including the provision of reasoned orders, when exercising revisional jurisdiction.

Headnote:(A) Tenancy Law - Restoration of land - Once the validity of land transfer and rights to property are determined by a competent civil court, such findings attain finality and cannot be ignored in subsequent proceedings under special tenancy legislation, unless shown to be vitiated. (Paras 14, 15)

(B) Customary Law - Burden of proof - Custom being in derogation of general law must be strictly pleaded and proved by cogent, reliable, and unambiguous evidence; it cannot be established by analogy, judicial assumption, or judicial notice in the absence of established precedent. (Paras 6, 7, 8, 16)

(C) Natural Justice - Revisional Authority - An authority exercising revisional jurisdiction must provide a reasoned order and ensure an opportunity of hearing is provided to parties, especially when setting aside findings of subordinate authorities. (Paras 17, 19)

Facts of the case:
Successors of an original tenant moved applications for restoration of land under special tenancy legislation. The petitioners, representing the successors-in-interest of the purchasers, argued that they acquired the land after obtaining mandatory statutory permissions and that a prior civil court decree had already confirmed their title, restraining the respondents from interference. While an appellate authority initially set aside the order of restoration, a higher revisional authority subsequently directed the restoration of the land, heavily relying on an asserted customary practice restricting female inheritance and alienation rights without providing adequate reasoning or empirical evidence.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the revisional authority failed to account for the binding nature of the prior civil court decree and neglected to require formal proof of the alleged custom. The order was passed without proper appreciation of the evidence and failed to adhere to procedural fairness.

Issues: Whether the revisional order was legally sustainable in light of a pre-existing civil decree and the absence of evidence regarding the alleged restrictive customary law governing tribal property inheritance.

Ratio Decidendi: Customary law, as it varies from general law, requires strict proof and cannot be presumed by the court. Furthermore, quasi-judicial authorities must refrain from interfering with final civil court adjudications without compelling legal grounds and must adjudicate matters following principles of natural justice.

Result: Writ petition allowed; the impugned revisional order is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the revisional authority for fresh adjudication after providing a fair hearing to all parties.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and statement of grievance under article 226. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. contention on tribal inheritance customs and legal necessity of land alienation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. requirement to prove customs through evidence and ensuring procedural fairness. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. remand of revision cases for fresh adjudication based on legal evidence. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

Heard Mr. Kushal Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Vineet Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 5, 6 and 8.

2. Notice upon legal heir/successor of respondent no.7 has been effected, however, she has chosen not to appear.

3. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 05.12.2000 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ghatshila (respondent no.4) in S.A.R. Case No.18/1999-2000 by which he has passed the order for restoration of land measuring an area of 2.57 acres out of Plot Nos.118, 121, 150, 151, 1095, 1006 and Khata No.29, situated at Mauza Agarpara, P.S. Garbandha, East Singhbhum in exercising power under Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (hereinafter to be referred to as “CNT Act”). The prayer is also made for quashing of the order dated 06.09.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan), Sub-Division, Chaibasa in S.A.R. Revision No.5/06, 6/06 and 7/06 allowing the revision filed by respondent nos. 5 and 6 by setting-aside the order dated 24.11.2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in S.A.R. Appeal Nos.157, 158, 159/2000-01.

4. Mr. Kushal Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the lands of Khata No.176 and 178 situated at Mauza Amrapara, P.S. Bahragora, Dist. Singhbhum was recorded in the revisional survey records of rights in the name of Surai Manjhi. He further submits that the said Surai Manjhi instituted Title Suit No.37/28-76/77 in the Court of the learned Sub-Judge, Jamshedpur against Kala Santhal and others i.e. the ancestors of respondent nos.5 and 6 praying therein a decree for declaration of title and confirmation of possession with respect to the land measuring an area of 6.28 acres comprised within Khata Nos.29 and 30 situated at Amrapara, P.S. Bahragora, District- East Singhbhum and the prayer was made for grant of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession over the suit land. He then submits that respondent nos. 5 and 6 contested the suit by filing written statement and the learned Sub-Judge, Jamshedpur after properly considering the materials available on records and the relevant provisions of law decreed the suit and permanently restrained the defendants to enter into the said property vide judgment/decree dated 31.07.1978, contained in Annexure-1 of this petition. He next submits that against the said judgment, there was no appeal by the defendants and the same became final, conclusive and binding upon the parties. He also submits that the said Surai Manjhi remained in possession over the lands so long alive and after his death, his only daughter Hira Manjhian inherited the aforesaid property and came into possession of the same. He submits that Hira Manjhian on account of legal necessities, sold 1.13 acres of land out of plots of Khata Nos.29 and 30 by virtue of registered sale deed dated 20.02.1982 vide Sale Deed No.1507 and further 1.30 acres of land by virtue of another registered sale deed dated 20.02.21982 vide Sale Deed No.1506 and further 3.52 acres vide registered sale deed dated 20.02.1982 vide Sale Deed No.1508 after obtaining permission under Section 46 of the CNT Act passed in Misc. Case No.565/78-79 and 566/78-79 and 567-78-79 and, thereafter, the petitioners came into possession over the same. He further submits that after purchase of the aforesaid lands, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Jhk) 609

Cases Referred (5)