Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 334 (JHR)

Chaitu Oraon v. State Of Jharkhand

2004-03-26

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2004
ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. Moti Ram, F/O respondent Nos. 5 and 6 filed an application Under Section 71-A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act before Special Officer, Lohardaga, for restoration of land of khata No. 92, plot Nos. 946, area 1.78 acres, 973 area 0.60 acres, 1019 area, 1.38 acres and plot No. 1705 area, 1.70 acres respectively total area 5.46 acres situated in Village Juria, PS and District Lohardaga. The said lands were recorded in the name of Dhandeya Oraon in the last revisional, survey. According to the case of the respondent No. 7, Jhanga Lal, the aforesaid lands were surrendered by the recorded tenant Dhandeya Oraon to the Ex-Land Lord by a registered deed of Surrender dated 18.07.1935 and after surrender of the same, the Ex-Land Lord settled the said lands with Bhadru Sahu, F/O Jhanga Lal (respondent No. 7) on 01.08.1935 and since then he remained in possession thereof for 40 years. After vesting of Zamindari the khata of the aforesaid tad was opened in the name of Bhadru Sahu in Register (II) and the rent was fixed in his name by the State of Bihar. 3. The Special Officer dismissed the application for restoration filed by Moti Oraon by his order dated 10.07.1978 (Annexure-2). Against the said order of the Special Officer, Moti Oraon filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Lohardaga. The said appeal was also dismissed by order dated 04.05.1987 and the order of the Special Officer was confirmed. By that time the original applicant Moti Oraon died. His sons, i.e. the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 Madho Oraon and Ramjeet Oraon preferred a revision before the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi against the order passed by the Special Officer as well as of the Additional Collector. 4. The learned Commissioner by her order dated 09.04.2001, contained in Annexure-4, allowed the Revision Application after holding that the surrender deed appears to be a forged one and therefore, the settlement on the basis of the said forged surrender deed was illegal. Accordingly, the learned Commissioner set aside the order of the Special Officer as well as of the Additional Collector. The order of the learned Commissioner dated 09.04.2001 as contained in Annexure-4, is under challenge in this writ application. 5. Accordingly, the learned Commissioner set aside the order of the Special Officer as well as of the Additional Collector. The order of the learned Commissioner dated 09.04.2001 as contained in Annexure-4, is under challenge in this writ application. 5. The case of the petitioner is that the successor in interest of the settlee, namely, Bhadru Sahu, Jhanga Lal and Jugal Kishore Lal sold their lands to the father of the petitioner No. 2 Bhola Bhagat (now dead) by two registered sale deeds in the year 1984 and in the year 1985 and thus Bhola Bhagat purchased the total area of 1.70 acres of land of khata No. 92 of plot No. 1705 of Village Juria. After the aforesaid purchase Bhola Bhagat got his name mutated with respect to the land purchased by him and remained in peaceful possession thereof. It is further stated that during the pendency of the revision application before the Commissioner, Sheikh Abbas Ansari purchased 60 decimals of land of plot No. 973 of the aforesaid khata No. 92 by two registered sale deeds, one dated 10.08.1988 and another dated 10.05.1988 from Jhangalal S/O late Bhadru Sahu and the sons of Jugal Kishore successor of interest of late Bhadru Sahu. Subsequently, the petitioner No. 1 Chaitu Oraon purchased the aforesaid 60 decimals of land under Khata No. 92, plot No. 973 from Sheikh Abbas Ansari by registered sale deed dated 13.04.1989 and they came in possession thereof. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mrs. Jaya Roy has assailed the order of the learned Commissioner on the ground that the application for restoration of the land in question were filed after expiry of 35 years from the date of surrender by means of registered deed dated 18.07.1935 and therefore the application Under Section 71 -A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act was barred by limitation. In support of her submission she has cited a decision in the case of Sheikh Rahimuddin and others v. Lakho Devi and others, reported in 1998 (1) All PLR 512. 7. It was further submitted that there was no basis for the findings arrived at by the Commissioner that the registered deed of surrender was forged one. 8. Admittedly, the application for restoration Under Section 71-A of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act was filed in the year 1977 whereas the land to question was surrendered by the registered deed of surrender in the year 1935. 8. Admittedly, the application for restoration Under Section 71-A of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act was filed in the year 1977 whereas the land to question was surrendered by the registered deed of surrender in the year 1935. Therefore, it is clear that it was filed after about 43 years. The limitation for filing an application Under Section 71-A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act is only 30 years. Therefore, apparently the application for restoration was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the period of limitation of 30 years. In the case of Sheikh Rahimuddin and others (supra) it has been held that the application for restoration filed after expiry of about 20 years of abandonment of tenancy cannot be allowed, more so where the settlee from the Ex-Land Lord had perfected his title by remaining in possession for more than 12 years before the enactment of Scheduled Area Regulation, 1969. 9. In view of my findings and discussions above this application is allowed and the order as contained in Annexure-4 passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, dated 09.04.2001 is hereby set aside.