Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 238 (JHR)

Mirju Kui v. State of Jharkhand

2015-02-12

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
ORDER Aggrieved by order dated 08.09.2003 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 32/2001-02 and order dated 08.11.2004 in S.A.R. Revision No. 93/2003-04, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, in the Records of Rights published in the year 1964, land comprised in Khata No. 288 in village/mauza Jagannathpur was recorded jointly in the name of late Jagmohan Sinku and late Ghanshyam Sinku however, it has also been mentioned that an area of 4.29 acres is in illegal possession of Rajkiya Russel High School since 1953. After the death of the recorded tenant, the petitioners came in possession of land in question, and when they tried to cultivate the land comprised in Plot No. 2198, Khata No. 288, the respondent no. 6 did not permit them to cultivate the land. The respondent no. 6 setup a claim that the land was purchased by the School sometime in the year, 1947. The petitioners were ousted from their land in the year, 2000 and therefore, an application under Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act for restoration of possession was filed which was registered as S.A.R. Case No. 06/2000-01. The respondent no. 6 appeared and filed reply stating that an area of 4.29 acres in Plot No. 2198 which was sold by the recorded tenant namely, Ganga Ram Ho for which permission was granted by the Kolhan superintendent on 28.03.1947 and the land was duly mutated in the name of Government Russel High School, Jagannathpur. The S.A.R. Case No. 06/2000-01 was allowed vide order dated 09.11.2001 holding that the permission can be granted only by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act. The Circle Officer was directed to restore the possession of the land in question to the petitioners. However, the appeal preferred by the respondent no.6 being S.A.R. Appeal No. 32/2001-02 was allowed on the ground that the application under Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act was time-barred. The revision petition being S.A.R. Revision No. 93/ 2003-04 preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed vide order dated 08.11.2004 and therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land in question was illegally occupied by the respondent no. The revision petition being S.A.R. Revision No. 93/ 2003-04 preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed vide order dated 08.11.2004 and therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land in question was illegally occupied by the respondent no. 6 and alleged permission granted by the Kolhan superintendent on 28.03.1947 was illegal and therefore, S.A.R. Case No. 06/2000-01 was rightly allowed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms respondent no. 5. 5. As against the above, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the land in question was sold way back in the year, 1947 however, the application under Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act was filed in the year, 2000 and therefore, the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have rightly held the application under Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act, time-barred. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. From the materials on record, I find that in the Survey Settlement Record, it is mentioned that the land in question is in illegal possession of the respondent no. 6School. The respondent no. 6 has claimed that after obtaining permission it purchased the land on 28.03.1947. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms in order dated 09.11.2001 has recorded that the land in question is uncultivated. In this view of the matter, the plea taken by the petitioners that they were ousted from possession in the year, 2000, is apparently false. After more than 50 years, the application under Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act preferred by the petitioners has rightly been dismissed as time-barred by the appellate authority. I find no infirmity in the orders passed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.