Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 797 (JHR)

Sohrai Oraon v. State of Bihar

2002-07-30

HARI SHANKAR PRASAD, M.Y.EQBAL

body2002
JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J.- This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 27.1.1998 passed in CWJC No. 2/96(R) whereby the learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the orders passed by the Authority under section 71 A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. 2. Petitioners/appellants' case is that the land appertaining to R.S. Khata No. 71 plot no. 78 measuring an area of 15 decimals situated at village Madhukam, P.S. Sukhdeonagar was recorded as Kaimi in the revisional survey records of right in the name of the ancestors of the petitioners. Petitioners filed application under section 71 A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act for restoration of land which was registered as S.A.R. Case no. 250 of 1979-80. The Special Officer, Ranchi in terms of order dated 6.12.1983 allowed the restoration application and in the alternative directed for payment of compensation holding that the lands were raiyati lands of the member of the scheduled tribe and was transferred in contravention of the provisions of the said Act. Respondent nos. 6 to 8 preferred appeal against the said order. The appellate authority by its judgment dated 13.1.1986 inter alia held that only 61/2 decimals of lands were Chaparbandi lands and consequently allowed the appeal in part in respect of only 61/2 decimals of lands of plot no. 78. Thereafter, petitioner filed revision application before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division being S.A.R. Revision No. 226 of 1986. The Revisional Authority in terms of order dated 16.3.1994 dismissed the revision application and held that the entire land measuring an area of 13 decimals cannot be restored under section 71A of the said Act. Petitioner then filed the aforementioned writ petition challenging the order of the revisional authority. Learned Single Judge held that when the land was Chaparbandi one, petition under section 71 A of the Act was not maintainable and further that when both appellate authority and the revisional authority have held that the land is Chaparbandi, there is no scope for this Court to re-appreciate the material on record to decide whether the lands had been Chaparbandi or not. 3. Mr. N.K. Prasad, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants assailed the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge as being contrary to law and the facts and evidence on record. 3. Mr. N.K. Prasad, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants assailed the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge as being contrary to law and the facts and evidence on record. Learned counsel submitted that when the appellate authority allowed the restoration application in respect of 61/2 decimals of land the said order became final in as much as no revision was filed by the respondents against that part of the order. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed error of record in holding that Chaparbandi settlement was made in favour of respondent nos. 6 to 8 when as a matter of fact Chaparbandi settlement was made in favour of the father of the appellants. Learned counsel then submitted that there is no evidence to show that the land was ever surrendered by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner and, therefore question of making Chaparbandi settlement in the year, 1953 did not arise. According to the learned counsel conversion of raiyati land in Chaparbandi was made only to by-pass section 72 of the said Act. 4. Mr. Debi Prasad, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondents firstly submitted that the application for restoration filed in 1979 itself was barred by principles of res judicata inasmuch as similar application was filed in 1976 which was rejected and against that order no appeal or revision was filed by the appellant. Learned counsel then submitted that the land in question is a Chaparbandi land which was sold as far back as in 1953 and even in the records maintained by the State of Bihar 'the land was recorded as Chaparbandi. It is contended that the predecessor in interest of the appellant have sold the land for valuable consideration by virtue of registered sale deed dated 11.5.1953 in favour of Smt. Ruma Devi, widow of Babu Hira Lal and Smt. Ruma Devi in her turn gifted the land together with the outstanding dues thereon in favour of Smt. Puspa Devi by virtue of registered sale deed in 1965. Learned counsel submitted that in all the revenue records the land in question was shown as Chaparbandi land and, therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly affirmed the order passed by the revenue authorities. 5. Learned counsel submitted that in all the revenue records the land in question was shown as Chaparbandi land and, therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly affirmed the order passed by the revenue authorities. 5. It is admitted case of the parties that the disputed land is Chaparbandi holding which was created in the year 1953 by virtue of deed of Chaparbandi settlement in the revenue records of rights and the nature of the land was recorded as "Ghar Bari". 1te Chaparbandi settlement was made in favour of the predecessor in interest of the appellant. Subsequently the predecessor of the appellant sold the land in 1953 for valuable consideration. The Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division who is the revisional authority has gone into details of the facts and evidences on record and has recorded a conclusive finding that the plot in question being Chaparbandi the application for restoration was not maintainable. In our opinion, learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly held that since the Chaparbandi settlement was made in favour of the appellants' predecessor as far back as in 1953, no permission from the Deputy Commissioner was necessary for transferring the land by the predecessors of the appellants in favour of the transferee. 6. We do not find any reason to differ with the findings recorded by the revenue authorities and affirmed by the learned Single Judge. It is not a case where the appellants' predecessors were fraudulently and illegally dispossessed from the land in question transfer was made in contravention of the provisions of C.N.T. Act. 7. For the reasons aforesaid we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly, dismissed.