Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 760 (JHR)

Md. Munna Ali v. State Of Bihar

2002-07-18

LAKSHMAN URAON, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2002
JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. The writ petitioners-appellants being dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 30th August, 1999 passed by learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 3660 of 1998(R), preferred this appeal on the ground that they acquired right and title over the land in question and the application under Section 71A of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act (C.N.T. Act for short) preferred by 5th respondent, Poulus Oraon was not maintainable being barred by limitation. 2. The land in question measuring 0.24 acres out of R.S. Plot No. 783 under Khata No. 7 is situated at village-Pugru, P.S. Hatia, District-Ranchi. It belonged to the ancestor of 5th respondent, Poulus Oraon, a Scheduled Tribe. Lakho Oraon (since deceased), father of 5th respondent filed an application under Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act before the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi for restoration of land in his favour, which was registered as SAR Case No. 10 of 1988-89. The first revenue court corning to the conclusion that the land in question is wrongly in possession of appellants in contravention of Section 46 of C.N.T. Act. Vide order dated 18.8.1993, restored the land in favour of Lakho Oraon (since deceased), father of 5th respondent. The appellants thereafter preferred SAR Appeal No. 79-R 15 of 1993-94 which was dismissed on 4.10.1993 followed by dismissal of Revision case being Ranchi Revenue Revision No. 399 of 1993 as was preferred by the appellants. The appellants having lost before three revenue courts, moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3660 of 1998(R). Learned single Judge vide order dated 30th August, 1999 taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and the orders passed by three revenue courts, also came to the conclusion that the ancestor of 5th respondent was dispossessed from the property by fraudulent method by virtue of procuring compromise decree in their favour. In view of concurrent finding arrived at by the three authorities, learned single Judge did not choose to interfere with the order. It was also observed that no prima facie document of title in favour of writ petitioners appellants was produced before this Court. 3. In view of concurrent finding arrived at by the three authorities, learned single Judge did not choose to interfere with the order. It was also observed that no prima facie document of title in favour of writ petitioners appellants was produced before this Court. 3. In this case, learned counsel for the appellants raised two questions, namely, (a) the application under Section 71-A was not maintainable and barred by limitation and (b) even if it was maintainable, the courts should have allowed the benefit as per second proviso of Section 71-A, appellants having made certain structure over the land in question. 4. It is pertinent to mention that the appellants produced certain evidence to claim right, title, possession and construction of structure. In support of right, title and possession, only one compromise decree dated 18th December, 1958 passed by learned Munsif, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 279/58 was produced. Much stress was given on the terms of compromise but according to me, the appellants cannot derive any advantage in view of the language mentioned therein, if it is read with the relevant provisions of law. The compromise decree seems to have been reached between Most. Kusmi Grain widow of late Thusku Oraon, ancestor of 5th respondent and Md. Ali, ancestor of appellants. The plaintiff was a tribal, who sought for a decree for ejectment of defendant, Md, All. In the terms of compromise, it was mentioned that the defendants were in possession of land since 18-19 years and have paid Rs. 200/- to the plaintiff. They (defendants) have purchased the land and acquired raiyati right. Such declaration though made in the terms of compromise, cannot be accepted, there being no any evidence on record to suggest that the defendant, Md. Ali was in possession of the land since the year 1940 i.e. 18-19 years prior to the compromise, nor it can be presumed that the defendant, Md. Ali on payment of consideration of amount of Rs. 200/- to the plaintiff acquired raiyati right. Neither reference of any registered sale deed was given in the terms of compromise, nor the appellant produced any evidence before any of the court of law that an agreement was made or executed by the plaintiff. The details of lands have also not been shown therein. It is a settled law that for consideration amount more than Rs. 100/- should be registered sale-deed. The details of lands have also not been shown therein. It is a settled law that for consideration amount more than Rs. 100/- should be registered sale-deed. No person can acquire any right and title on the basis of oral or unregistered sale deed. 5. In view of the aforesaid terms of compromise and taking into consideration that the plaintiff was a tribal lady, the court below and learned single Judge came to a definite conclusion and gave concurrent finding that the ancestor of 5th respondent was dispossessed from the land in question by fraudulent method by virtue of procuring a compromise decree, I find no reason to differ with such finding of fact in absence of any proper evidence of right and title in favour of appellants. So far as limitation is concerned, 30 years have been prescribed under Section 71A of C.N.T. Act from the date of transfer, construction any building or structure on such holding or portion thereof. If it come to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that the transfer of land of a member of Scheduled Tribe has taken placed in contravention of Section 46 or by any fraudulent method, after giving reasonable opportunity to the person, who is proposed to be evicted and after necessary enquiry in the matter, evict the transferee from such land without payment of compensation and restore it to the transferor or his heir. In absence of any evidence relating to transfer of land or the date of construction of building, it is difficult to count the date from which period to be counted for limitation. At best, it can be counted from 18th December, 1958 when the compromise was made and in such case also, the application under Section 71A to be held within the period of limitation. The limitation prescribed under Section 46, as referred by the counsel for the appellants is of no avail in the present case as the father of 5th respondent did not choose to prefer any application for annulment of the transfer made in contravention of Section 46. In fact, there was no occasion to ask for annulment of transfer in absence of any evidence relating to transfer. In fact, there was no occasion to ask for annulment of transfer in absence of any evidence relating to transfer. In a case of restoration of land under Section 71-A, namely, Arun Oraon v. State of Bihar, reported in 2001 (1) Jhr CR 156 (Jhr), this Court taking into consideration unregistered deed of exchange followed by possession held that it will not confer absolute right, title and interest in land, nor is reliable evidence to show possession, restoration of possession of land was allowed in favour of writ petitioner of the said case. The other question was raised as to whether the appellants were entitled for benefit under Section proviso to Section 71-A of C.N.T. Act or not. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the transferee (appellants) constructed any building or structure on such holding or portion thereof. The evidences relied by the counsel for the appellants are certain vouchers of 1961 showing purchase of bricks. However, that does not mean that the bricks were purchased to construct any house or structure over the land in question. The other evidence is electricity bill with connection No. HAT/160 or connection No. HAT/369, cannot be relied upon to give a finding that a building/structure has been constructed on the land in question, as the electricity connection is also taken for some other purpose like irrigation of field where there is no building or structure. Even in the compromise decree, it is not mentioned that any structure or building is standing over the land in question. In the case of Ajoy Metachen Ltd. v. Commissioner, South Chotanagpur, reported in 2001 (1) JLJR 165 : 2001 (1) JCR 278 (Jhr), this Court held that if the transferee after taking possession of tribal land in contravention of law, makes some improvement of the land or convert the use of the land by making structure with a view to overrule the law and taking recourse to fraudulent method then compensation would not be payable while passing order of restoration of land. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, particularly, in absence of any evidence, I hold that the appellants cannot derive any benefit of second proviso to Section 71-A of C.N.T. Act. There being no merit and concurrent finding of all the court below and learned single Judge, this appeal is dismissed. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances, particularly, in absence of any evidence, I hold that the appellants cannot derive any benefit of second proviso to Section 71-A of C.N.T. Act. There being no merit and concurrent finding of all the court below and learned single Judge, this appeal is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Lakshman Uraon, J. 7. I agree.