Advocates:
['AJIT KUMAR', '', 'VIKESH KUMAR', 'G A -III', '', 'PANDEY A N ROY', 'PRAGATI PRASAD', 'MANOJ KR NO']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

W.P.(C) No. 5308 of 2013

Baijnath Mahto, son of Lakhia Mahto, resident of Village-

Guchidih, PO & PS: Sonahatu, District- Ranchi

…

…

Petitioner

Versus

1. Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, PO:

Ranchi, PS: Kotwali, District- Ranchi

2. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, PO: Ranchi, PS: Kotwali,

District- Ranchi

3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Khunti, PO, PS & District- Khunti

4. Raghunath Singh Munda, son of Late Kunjal Singh Munda,

resident of Village- Guchidih, PO & PS: Sonahatu, District-

Ranchi

5. The State of Jharkhand.

…

… Respondents

---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner

: Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate

For the Private Respondent : Mr. P. P. N. Roy, Sr. Advocate

Ms. Pragati Prasad, Advocate

For the Respondent- State

: Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate

13/12.12.2018

Heard Mr. A. K. Sahani, counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner.

2.

Heard Mr. P. P. N. Roy, Senior counsel appearing on

behalf of the private respondent assisted by Ms. Pragati Prasad,

counsel for the private respondent.

3.

Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondent-State.

4.

This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“ For grant of an appropriate writ in the nature of Certiorari or an

order or direction for quashing an order dated 27/12/2003 passed by

the respondent no. 1 in Ranchi SAR Revision No. 273 of 1997

(Annexure- 3) reversing the order dated 16/7/1997 passed by the

respondent no. 2 in Appeal No. 455 R15 of 1996-97 (Annexure- 2) as

well as the order dated 9/10/1996 passed by the respondent no. 3 in

RM Case No. 76 of 1994-95 (Annexure- 1) under Section 242 of the

CNT Act and for any other appropriate writ or order or direction as

this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

2

5.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent

no. 4 herein filed an application under Section 242 of

Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 before the respondent no. 3 for

restoration of land in possession of various persons and the

case was registered as RM Case No. 76 of 1994-95. The

petitioner is only concerned with R.S. Plot No. 1076 area 1.43

acres; Plot No. 1072 area 0.16 acre and Plot No. 998 area 0.57

acre in village Sonahatu, Thana Sonahatu district at Ranchi.

Upon issuance of notice, the petitioner claimed that the land in

question was settled to his ancestor by ex-khuntkatti right

before preparation of cadastral survey record-of-right and the

ancestor of the petitioner converted it into cultivable land by

way of Korkar. The said case was dismissed by the respondent

no. 3 vide order dated 09.10.1996. The authority held that inter

alia the petitioner was in possession of the property by way of

settlement and the rent was also being paid by the petitioner

and inter alia the petitioner has continued to remain in

possession since the cadastral survey and held that inter alia the

petitioner is holding the property by way of kayami Raiyati

right and such transfer is not covered by Section 240 of the

Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908.

6.

Against the said order, the private respondent herein

filed appeal, which was numbered as Appeal No. 455 R15 of

1996-97 and the appellate authority disposed of the appeal vide

order dated 16.07.1997. The appellate authority, while

disposing of the appeal, held that inter alia, the petitioner herein

is in possession of the land for more than 80 years and the

petitioner had given proof to assert his claim that he had

converted the land in question into Korkar except 25 decimals

of Plot No. 1071 out of the total land which was subject matter

of the case, and that his possession is recorded in the record of

right in the remarks column and therefore, the claim of the

3

private respondent herein was rejected, except to the extent of

25 d