Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Application under Section 240 of the CNT Act after more than 30 or 50 years from the date of alleged illegal transfer or dispossession cannot be entertained as a matter of limitation, especially when the transfer was made in violation of the restrictions on transfer of Mundari Khuntkatti land ["Thakur Ghansham Singh Munda VS Commission S. C. Division - Jharkhand"], ["Sharda Devi VS Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi - Jharkhand"], ["Pashupati Nath Mandai VS Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi - Jharkhand"], ["Surendra Hembrum, S/o. Late Sadhan Munda VS Shobha, W/o. Late Uday Saw - 2022 0 Supreme(Jhk) 579"].
Section 240 of the CNT Act imposes restrictions on the transfer of Mundari Khuntkatti land, making such transfers invalid if made in contravention of the law. Courts have consistently held that transfers in violation of Section 240 are void and cannot confer lawful title ["Kalia Babu Munda VS Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division - Jharkhand"], ["Hem Prasad Singh Munda, Son of Late Basant Lal Babu vs Srikant Singh Munda - Jharkhand"], ["Sandhu Munda VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"], ["Elizabeth Horo VS state of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"].
The period for filing applications for restoration or ejectment in cases of unlawful transfer is generally limited to 12 or 30 years, depending on the applicable regulation and amendments. Applications filed after these periods are barred by limitation, and courts have rejected such delayed applications ["Sharda Devi VS Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi - Jharkhand"], ["Sandhu Munda VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"], ["Surendra Hembrum, S/o. Late Sadhan Munda VS Shobha, W/o. Late Uday Saw - 2022 0 Supreme(Jhk) 579"], ["Lakho Devi VS Sk. Rahimuddin Ansari - Jharkhand"].
Notably, Section 71A of the CNT Act, which provides for restoration of land to tribal members unlawfully dispossessed, does not prescribe a specific time limit, allowing such applications to be entertained even after lengthy delays, including beyond 30 or 50 years, if the application is filed in accordance with the law ["RAGHUNATH SINGH MUNDA vs THE COMMISSIONER SOUTH CHHOTANAGPUR DIVISION - Jharkhand"], ["Jatru Oraon, S/o Late Deva Oraon vs State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"], ["Surendra Hembrum, S/o. Late Sadhan Munda VS Shobha, W/o. Late Uday Saw - 2022 0 Supreme(Jhk) 579"].
However, the law emphasizes that applications under Section 71A filed after a long delay, such as 35, 50, or 60 years, are often viewed skeptically and may be barred if found to be beyond a reasonable period, especially when the transfer was made in violation of the restrictions under Sections 46, 48, or 240, or by fraudulent means ["Jatru Oraon, S/o Late Deva Oraon vs State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"], ["Surendra Hembrum, S/o. Late Sadhan Munda VS Shobha, W/o. Late Uday Saw - 2022 0 Supreme(Jhk) 579"], ["SURENDRA HEMBRUM vs SHOBHA - Jharkhand"].
Courts have repeatedly held that the mere passage of time, especially beyond 30 or 50 years, without any exceptional circumstances or proof of continuous possession, renders applications for restoration or ejectment inadmissible ["Sandhu Munda VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"], ["Sharda Devi VS Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi - Jharkhand"], ["RAGHUNATH SINGH MUNDA vs THE COMMISSIONER SOUTH CHHOTANAGPUR DIVISION - Jharkhand"].
Analysis and Conclusion:While Section 240 of the CNT Act restricts the transfer of Mundari Khuntkatti land and such transfers are invalid if made unlawfully, applications for ejectment or restoration filed after a long delay (exceeding 30 or 50 years) are generally barred by limitation. The law permits some flexibility under Section 71A for restoration without a prescribed time limit, but courts tend to dismiss delayed applications if they are not supported by exceptional circumstances or if the transfer was made fraudulently or in violation of law. Therefore, an application under Section 240 after more than 30 years from the date of unlawful transfer is unlikely to be entertained.
The Chotanagpur Tenancy (CNT) Act, 1908, plays a crucial role in protecting tribal land rights in Jharkhand, particularly for lands like Mundari Khuntkatti tenancies. These ancestral lands held by Mundas are safeguarded against unlawful transfers to non-tribals. However, a common question arises: Can an application under Section 240 for ejectment under the CNT Act after more than 30 years from Mundari Khuntkatti land be entertained?
Generally, courts have ruled that such applications cannot be entertained if filed after more than 30 years from the date of transfer or unlawful act. This stems from judicial interpretations imposing a reasonable time limit, despite the Act's phrasing suggesting otherwise. This blog explores the legal framework, key judgments, and practical implications, drawing from established case law. Note: This is general information and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Section 71A, inserted via the Scheduled Area Regulation Act, 1969, empowers the Deputy Commissioner to restore possession of land unlawfully transferred in violation of the CNT Act, at any time when it comes to notice Surendra Hembrum, S/o. Late Sadhan Munda VS Shobha, W/o. Late Uday Saw - 2022 0 Supreme(Jhk) 579. This provision aims to protect tribal lands, including Mundari Khuntkatti, from transfers without prior approval under Section 46.
Section 240 deals with ejectment proceedings related to restrictions on transfers of such protected lands BAIJNATH MAHTO vs COMMISSIONER SOUTH CHHOTANAGPUR DIVISION AND ORS. However, the phrase at any time in Section 71A does not mean unlimited jurisdiction. Courts have consistently interpreted it to include a reasonable limitation period, typically 30 years, to balance tribal protections with third-party rights and prevent stale claims Shatura Munda VS State of Jharkhand - 2022 0 Supreme(Jhk) 622.
While no explicit statutory limitation exists in Section 71A, courts apply the principle of reasonable time. In a pivotal ruling, the court stated: From the provisions of Section 71A, it is apparent that Section 71A does not provide any period of limitation for restoration of land... but it is well settled that proceedings under Section 71A are subject to a reasonable time limit, which is generally held to be 30 years. Shatura Munda VS State of Jharkhand - 2022 0 Supreme(Jhk) 622. Further, In the present case, the application for restoration was filed after more than 30 years from the date of transfer, which is barred by limitation.
The Supreme Court reinforced this in another case: The power under Section 71A cannot be exercised after an unreasonably long time during which third-party interests might have come into effect, and 30 years has been recognized as a reasonable period. Charo Oraon, S/o. Late Libua Oraon VS State of Jharkhand - 2024 0 Supreme(Jhk) 204. This prevents prejudice to bona fide purchasers or occupants who have relied on long-standing possession.
Mundari Khuntkatti tenancies represent an ancient Munda system of land tenure, where the Munda (headman) and his kin hold privileged rights over village lands Sukhu Munda VS Manu Munda - 2019 Supreme(Jhk) 1107. These lands are inalienable and protected under the CNT Act to preserve tribal customs and prevent exploitation.
Customs like inheritance to nearest male agnates in the absence of direct descendants apply, as seen in cases where courts upheld declarations in favor of such heirs for Mundari Khuntkatti lands Munga Lal Munda VS Keshram Munda - 2018 Supreme(Jhk) 1250. It is an admitted position of the parties that the suit land is Mundari Khuntkatti land. The last Munda was Mangu Munda, who died issueless. The plaintiff claimed as nearest agnates per Munda tradition.
Restoration applications under Section 71A have been entertained for such lands when filed timely, even amid procedural issues like incorrect plot references, prioritizing tribal interests Arthor Capton, s/o Late Pritam Capton VS State of Jharkhand - 2024 Supreme(Jhk) 350. However, delays beyond 30 years bar relief, as in cases linking limitation to Sections 48 or 240 SHAHDEO LOHRA vs LALO ORAIN And ORS.
Bar on Late Applications: Proceedings under Section 71A or 240 for ejectment are time-barred after 30 years. An application for restoration of Mundari Khuntkatti land filed decades later was rejected Shatura Munda VS State of Jharkhand - 2022 0 Supreme(Jhk) 622.
Third-Party Rights: Long possession creates equities. In a restoration dispute over plots occupied since 1982, courts upheld orders but stressed timely action to avoid vitiating claims Arthor Capton, s/o Late Pritam Capton VS State of Jharkhand - 2024 Supreme(Jhk) 350.
No Res Judicata for Unaddressed Lands: A suit for restoration not covered in prior proceedings isn't barred, but still subject to limitation Ful Kumari Minz VS State of Jharkhand - 2015 Supreme(Jhk) 489.
Customary Proof Required: Rules like primogeniture for Mundari lands need positive evidence; without it, partition suits proceed normally Brajendra Nath Singh Munda VS Subhadra Devi - 2015 Supreme(Jhk) 318.
These cases illustrate that while the CNT Act robustly protects tribal lands—requiring Deputy Commissioner approval for transfers—courts enforce practical limits BAIJNATH MAHTO vs COMMISSIONER SOUTH CHHOTANAGPUR DIVISION AND ORS.
No broad exceptions allow proceedings beyond 30 years in the reviewed judgments. Even fraud doesn't override the reasonable time principle if delay is excessive SHAHDEO LOHRA vs LALO ORAIN And ORS. Courts may condone minor delays under Limitation Act Section 5 analogies, but not decades-long lapses. For Mundari Khuntkatti, the focus remains on documented transfer dates to compute the period.
If dealing with CNT Act lands:
Authorities should scrutinize applications for delay before proceeding, safeguarding both tribal rights and settled possessions.
The CNT Act's noble intent to shield Mundari Khuntkatti and other tribal lands from unlawful transfers is tempered by a judicially imposed 30-year limitation on ejectment or restoration under Sections 71A and 240. As courts emphasize, proceedings under Section 71A are subject to a reasonable time limit Surendra Hembrum, S/o. Late Sadhan Munda VS Shobha, W/o. Late Uday Saw - 2022 0 Supreme(Jhk) 579. This ensures justice without perpetuating uncertainty.
Key Takeaways:- Applications after 30 years are typically barred Charo Oraon, S/o. Late Libua Oraon VS State of Jharkhand - 2024 0 Supreme(Jhk) 204.- Prioritize timely action to enforce rights.- Understand Mundari customs for inheritance claims.
For personalized guidance on CNT Act matters, consult a local expert familiar with Jharkhand land laws. Stay informed on tribal land rights to protect your interests.
#CNTAct #MundariKhuntkatti #TribalLandRights
Section 240 of the CNT Act, 1908 provides as under: “ 240. ... Initially, Mundari Khuntkatti land was not covered under Section 71A and accordingly, the transfers made in contravention of Section 240 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was also not covered. ... An application for restoration which does not disclose material particulars and dates cannot....
In 1983-84, i.e. after 30 years the appellant filed restoration application for restoration of same land which was settled by him on the ground that the land is Mundari Khutkatti and the settlement was. In violation of Section 240 of the C.N.T. Act. ... Considering these admitted facts we are further of the view that the appellant cannot be allowed to lead evidence and prove that the land in quest....
Section 240 was also included. ... Section 240 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 deals with restrictions on transfer of Mundari Khuntkatti under Section 71A and accordingly, the transfers made in p style
violation of provisions of section 240 – application allowed. ... Chotanagpar Tenancy Act, 1908 – section 240 and 243 – mendari khutlate tenancy not transferable be sale – transfer of land done in ... The Sub-Divisional Officer, Khunti allowed the application filed by the petitioner holding that Mundari Khutkatti, lands cannot be transferred to any person in view of Section 240 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and t....
suit for declaration of right, title, and possession over Mundari Khunt Kattidari land - Sale deed executed in contravention of Section ... 240 is void and unable to confer title - Courts below failed to recognize transfer restrictions - Appellants failed to prove lawful ... It is the objective view that Section 240 of the Act restricts the transfer of Mundari khunt kattidari tenancies except those provided in clause (4) of Section 240 of the #HL_STA....
The undisputed fact in this case is that the contesting respondent has made an application under Section 71-A of the CNT Act for restoration of land said to be plot nos.1410 and 1411 over khata no.66. The same was entertained and the notice was issued upon the appellant. ... 30 years, however, the same is not the subject matter herein but for making reference, the same has been referred herein. ... application, if yes, then what wil....
This decision relates to Section 242 of the CNT Act. The provision is for ejectment of persons unlawfully obtaining possession of "Mundari Khunt Kattidar" tenancy or any portion thereof in Contravention of Section 240. ... The period was only 12 years subsequently by introduction of Regulation 1 of 1969 in Section 71 A of the CNT Act the period of limitation was enhanced to 30 #H....
In 1992 respondent no. 4 made an application before the Special officer, Schedule Area Regulation, respondent no. 3, for restoration of the land under Section 71 A of the CNT Act on the allegation that the land was transferred by way of mortgage in 1960 fraudulently. ... -If at any time, it comes to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that transfer of land belonging to a raiyat [or a Mundari Khunt-Kattidar or a Bhuinhari] who is a member of the Sch....
Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908— Section 240—Transfer of Mundari Khunt-Katti land—Restriction on—Consistent findings of three Courts ... below—Transfer of land done in contravention of Section 240—Writ Court can not act as Appellate Court in determining the land was ... Learned counsel for the petitioners has confined his prayer and argument to the sole issue as to whether the land, in question, is Mundari Khunt-Katti land or not for the purposes of imposing restriction....
71 A of the CNT Act. ... Therefore the application for restoration was barred by the limitation Act which is 30 years in terms of Section 48 or Section 240] or any other provisions of this Act or by any fraudulent method. ... 46 [or Section 48 or Section 240] or any other provisions of this Act or by any fraudulent method, [including de....
He claims possession over the land in question since 1936 but after lapse of about more than 50 years, an application was filed by Respondent No.5/appellant under Section 71A of the CNT Act for restoration of the land.
Mundari khuntkatti tenancies.-The ancient system of land tenure still survives in scattered blocks in the Munda country. The Munda system of land tenure has been fully described in a valuable note by Father Hoffman, S.J., and Mr. Lister, C.S., which will be found in Appendix I to my edition of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. Father Hoffman is a missionary, who has spent 10 or 12 years in the Munda country and has made a special study of the Mundari language and Mundari social customs and land tenures.
The plaintiff has claimed Khewat No. 3/20 being the nearest agnates, as per the Munda tradition. 6. It is an admitted position of the parties that the suit land is Mundari Khuntkatti land. The last Munda was Mangu Munda, who died issueless.
5 filed restoration application under Section 71A of CNT Act for restoration of 30 decimal land in Khata No. 5, Plot No. 545. In the court of Special Officer, Birsa Oraon did not file written statement/counter-affidavit and in the appellate court also, he did not produce any evidence establishing his right and title over land comprised in Khata No. 5, Plot No. 545.
In view of the above reference, it is clear that the eldest son in the male line shall become the official head and he shall be called Munda or Headman of the village. So far the land pertaining to Mundari Khuntkati Tenancy, it is not indicated in the book that Munda shall be the sole proprietor of Mundari Khuntkatti Tenancy of the village. Being head, record of right may be prepared in his name, but, so far the right of other members are concerned, principle of inheritance and partition is required to be followed. Under the heading 'Partition' and 'Inheritance' under Chapt....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
