ORDER : I.A. No. 8207 of 2018 in L.P.A. No. 140 of 2018 1. This application has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 76 days in filing L.P.A. No. 140 of 2018. 2. There is no opposition by the respondents to this application. 3. In view of the averments made in this application, I.A. No. 8207 of 2018 is allowed. I.A. No. 7614 of 2023 in L.P.A. No. 140 of 2018 4. I.A. No. 7614 of 2023 has been filed by the appellants for deleting the name of the appellant no. 1 Ashok Oraon from the Memo of Appeal who died on 12th October 2022 during the pendency of the present appeal. In this application, the appellants have stated as under: “3. That the appellants state that during the pendency of the instant LPA the appellant no. 1 died on 12.10.2022 leaving behind no male legal heir. 4. That the appellants are governed by Oraon customary law applicable for tribals wherein daughters are not entitled for inheritance in the ancestral property. 5. That it is stated that since the brothers of deceased appellant no. 1 are already on records and arrayed as appellant nos. 2 to 6 and the property in question will be devolved among them.” 5. In view of the averments made in this application, I.A. No. 7614 of 2023 is allowed at the risk of the appellants. 6. Let necessary corrections be made in the memo of parties in both the cases during course of the day with red ink. L.P.A. No. 140 of 2018 with Cross Objection No. 3 of 2019 7. The present Letters Patent Appeal and the Cross Objection are taken up for hearing on merits with the consent of the parties. 8. L.P.A. No. 140 of 2018 and Cross Objection No. 3 of 2019 arise out of the common order dated 20th November 2017 passed by the writ Court in W.P. (C) No. 5458 of 2005 and W.P. (C) No. 507 of 2006. Both the writ petitions arise out of the same proceedings being SAR Case No. 294 of 1981. 9. 8. L.P.A. No. 140 of 2018 and Cross Objection No. 3 of 2019 arise out of the common order dated 20th November 2017 passed by the writ Court in W.P. (C) No. 5458 of 2005 and W.P. (C) No. 507 of 2006. Both the writ petitions arise out of the same proceedings being SAR Case No. 294 of 1981. 9. The writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 507 of 2006 was filed by Shanti Sinha (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) who is the cross objector in the present proceeding and the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 5458 of 2005 was filed by the present appellants. 10. The disputed property involved in the present case is appertaining to R.S. Khata No. 16, Plot Nos. 657 and 658, Area-12 Kathas, Village-Kathargonda, PS-Gonda, District-Ranchi. 11. The father of the appellants claiming to be the descendants of the recorded tenant filed an application under section 71-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (in short “CNT Act”) for restoration of land which was registered as SAR Case No. 294 of 1981 and allowed vide order dated 10th June 1983. 12. Against the said order dated 10th June 1983, SAR Appeal No. 89 of 1983-84 was filed by the private respondent and vide order dated 22nd May 1986 the matter was remanded to the original authority mainly on the ground that there was a substantial structure on the land. 13. Against the order of remand dated 22nd May 1986, the respondent preferred a revision being SAR Revision No. 380 of 1986 which was dismissed on merits vide order dated 8th December 1986. Against the order dated 8th December 1986, a writ petition being CWJC No. 273 of 1987(R) was filed by the private respondent and another which was dismissed on merits vide order dated 27th November 1996. However, since the appellate authority had remanded the matter for fixation of compensation the Court was of the view that the compensation was required to be fixed in terms of proviso (3) to section 71-A of the CNT Act. Against the writ Court’s order, L.P.A. No. 5 of 1997 was preferred by the private respondent which however was withdrawn. However, since the appellate authority had remanded the matter for fixation of compensation the Court was of the view that the compensation was required to be fixed in terms of proviso (3) to section 71-A of the CNT Act. Against the writ Court’s order, L.P.A. No. 5 of 1997 was preferred by the private respondent which however was withdrawn. The private respondent filed Civil Review No. 64 of 1997 before the writ Court for a modification in the order dated 27th November 1996 only to the extent that the compensation was required to fix in terms of the proviso (2) to section 71-A of the CNT Act and not under the proviso (3) to the Act as mentioned in the aforesaid order. The civil review petition was allowed to the aforesaid extent and, accordingly, compensation was to be fixed in terms of proviso (2) to section 71-A of the CNT Act. 14. Consequently, the compensation was fixed by the SAR Court vide order dated 15th March 2003 @ Rs. 18,000/- per Katha. Against the quantification, both the parties filed appeal. The appeal filed by the respondent was numbered as SAR Appeal No. 9R 15 of 2003-04 and the appeal filed by the present appellants was numbered as SAR Appeal No. 22R 15 of 2003-04. Both the appeals were dismissed vide common order dated 11th June 2004. 15. Against the order dated 11th June 2004, both the parties filed revision. The revision petitions filed by the appellants and the respondent vide SAR Revision No. 31 of 2004 and SAR Revision No. 28 of 2004 respectively have been dismissed by a common order dated 16th May 2005. 16. In the meantime, the respondent claims to have deposited an amount of Rs. 30857.14 on 27th September 2005 before the SAR Court being the amount of compensation as per the rate of compensation fixed by the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi vide order dated 15.03.2003 pursuant to the order of remand dated 22.05.1986 read with the order of the High Court passed in CWJC No. 273 of 1987/Civil Review No. 64 of 1997. 17. Both the parties challenged the order passed by the revisional authority and the writ petition filed by the appellants was numbered as W.P. (C) No. 5458 of 2005 whereas the writ petition filed by the private respondent was numbered as W.P. (C) No. 507 of 2006. 17. Both the parties challenged the order passed by the revisional authority and the writ petition filed by the appellants was numbered as W.P. (C) No. 5458 of 2005 whereas the writ petition filed by the private respondent was numbered as W.P. (C) No. 507 of 2006. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by the order impugned in the present Letters Patent Appeal. W.P. (C) No. 507 of 2006 filed by the private respondent was dismissed and W.P. (C) No. 5458 of 2005 was allowed to the extent that the authority was directed to fix the compensation of the land in question taking into consideration the government rate of the land prevailing as on 15th March 2003 i.e. the date on which the compensation was fixed by the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi. Arguments of the appellants. 18. Mr. Niraj Kishore, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants being the descendants of the recorded tenant were entitled to get back the property involved in the present case inasmuch as the transfer itself was illegal being against the provisions of the CNT Act. Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel has also submitted that the compensation fixed by the writ Court by referring to the government rate of land as on 15th March 2003 while disposing of the writ petitions vide impugned order dated 20th November 2017 was on much lower side and the measure of compensation so determined is not adequate in terms of the proviso (2) to section 71-A of the CNT Act. The learned counsel submits that the compensation ought to have been referable to the government rate as on the date of the impugned judgment i.e. 20th November 2017. Arguments of the private respondent. 19. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent has submitted that the application for restoration of land under section 71-A of the CNT Act was barred by limitation. He submits that the respondent had purchased the land in question by way of registered sale-deed on 14th January1958 from Saudamani Devi, wife of late Maharaja Pratap Uday Naht Sahahdeo and a house was constructed thereon prior to 1969 and thereafter she has been paying rent thereof in the Circle Office and also the municipal tax to the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. The respondent has got electric connection in the house since 30th December 1960. It is further submitted that khatiyani raiyat had surrendered the said land by way of registered sale-deed in the year 1940 itself whereas the restoration application was filed in the year 1981 i.e. after 40 years of dispossession. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jai Mangal Oraon vs. Meera Nayak, (2000) 5 SCC 141 and submits that the restoration application itself should not have been entertained after 30 years from the date of dispossession. 20. The learned counsel has also opposed the prayer for enhancement of compensation by submitting that the respondent had already deposited the compensation amount before the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi as back as on 27th September 2005 pursuant to the order dated 15th March 2003. The learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that once the money was deposited it was for the appellants to take the money from the Court of the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi. The appellants having not taken the compensation from the Court of Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi cannot take a plea that the amount of compensation should be fixed referring to the date of disposal of the writ petition i.e. 20th November 2017. The learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that the respondent is ready to comply with the order passed by the writ Court and is ready to deposit the differential amount as may be quantified by the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi. Rejoinder of the appellants. 21. It is submitted that the ratio of Jai Mangal Oraon (Supra) is not applicable in the cases, which have already attained finality. In the present case the matter was remanded for determination of compensation and the compensation amount decided by the Court of Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi has already been deposited. It is further submitted that neither any prayer nor any pleading on the issue of limitation was ever made earlier even during adjudication of the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 273 of 1987 which was dismissed on 27.11.1996. The private respondent also did not prefer appeal against the order dated 27th November 1996. Thus, at this stage, the issue of limitation cannot be raised. The private respondent also did not prefer appeal against the order dated 27th November 1996. Thus, at this stage, the issue of limitation cannot be raised. It is also submitted that the issue of limitation is hit by Explanation (iv) of section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the same cannot be agitated by the private respondent. Findings of this Court. 22. SAR Case No. 294 of 1981 was filed by the father of the appellants before the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi seeking restoration of land which was allowed. However, the appellate authority remanded the matter back to the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi on the ground that there was a substantial structure standing on the land prior to 1969 which is the year when section 71-A was introduced in the CNT Act as compensation could be fixed in terms of proviso (2) to section 71-A of the CNT Act when a substantial structure is found on the land constructed prior to 1969. 23. Ultimately, the order of remand was the subject matter of consideration in a writ petition filed by the private respondent herein in CWJC No. 273 of 1987(R). The said writ petition was dismissed on 27th November 1996 on merits by observing that since the matter has been remanded back to the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi it was expected that the authority while deciding the question shall take into consideration proviso (3) to section 71-A of the CNT Act. 24. The findings of the writ Court in CWJC No. 273 of 1987(R) are quoted as under: “4. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 21.11.1996 during the course of hearing it was submitted by Mr. Devi Prasad, on question being put by me as to how the ex-landlord granted a lease irrespective of raiyati land when the land being surrendered by the recorded raiyat, that there is a surrender deed and learned counsel agreed to file it in Court. On this submission the hearing of the case was adjourned and on the next date photocopy of the deed of surrender executed by Chuiya Oraon in favour of the ex-landlord. On perusal of this surrender deed it appears that this surrender was made on 12.8.1941. On this submission the hearing of the case was adjourned and on the next date photocopy of the deed of surrender executed by Chuiya Oraon in favour of the ex-landlord. On perusal of this surrender deed it appears that this surrender was made on 12.8.1941. If this surrender deed is accepted then the document of lease (Annexure-1) cannot be said to be a valid document in accordance with law inasmuch as this document of lease was executed on 24.1.1940 i.e. one year before the execution of surrender deed. How can there be a lease by the ex-landlord before the land was surrendered by the recorded tenant? 5. I am, therefore, of the view that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the respondent no. 4. The next submission made by Mr. Devi Prasad that the authority ought to have considered the fact that there was a pacca structure constructed much before 1960. 6................... 7. From perusal of the appellate order and revisional order it appears to me that the revisional court also refused to interfere on the ground that the appellate court also remanded the matter to the lower court for valuation. It goes without saying that since the matter has been remanded back to respondent no. 4 it is expected that respondent no. 4 while deciding the question shall take into consideration proviso (3) to section 71A of the said Act. 8. For the reason aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this writ application which is, accordingly, dismissed, subject to the observation made hereinabove.” 25. The appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment of the writ Court was withdrawn. Thereafter, the reference to ‘proviso (3) to section 71-A of the CNT Act’ in the judgment dated 27th November 1996 passed in CWJC No. 273 of 1987 (R) was modified to “proviso (2) to section 71-A of the CNT Act” in the order passed in the civil review petition. 26. The first point for consideration is whether the private respondent can raise the point of limitation and consequently take any advantage of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jai Mangal Oraon (Supra). 27. 26. The first point for consideration is whether the private respondent can raise the point of limitation and consequently take any advantage of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jai Mangal Oraon (Supra). 27. The judgment dated 27th November 1996 of the writ Court in CWJC No. 273 of 1987(R) clearly dismissed the case of the private respondent on merits and the case set up by the private respondent on the basis of surrender by the recorded tenant to the ex-landlord in the year 1941 was not accepted. It was also observed that if the surrender deed is accepted then the document of lease executed prior to surrender could not be accepted. In view of the aforesaid findings/observations in CWJC No. 273 of 1987(R), it cannot be said that the recorded tenant was dispossessed from the property in the year 1940/1941 as is being argued by the private respondent in the present proceedings. There is no finding with regard to the date of dispossession of the recorded tenant and the case set up by the private respondent that the recorded tenant had surrendered the land in the year 1941 or the lease deed was executed in the year 1940 has been disbelieved by this Court in the judgment dated 27th November 1996 passed in CWJC No. 273 of 1987(R) which has attained finality. In absence of any clear finding regarding date of dispossession, the private respondent cannot take any plea of limitation and take any advantage of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jai Mangal Oraon (Supra) where it has been held that merely because section 71-A of the CNT Act commences with the words “If at any time......” it cannot be taken to mean that powers under section 71-A of the CNT Act could be exercised without any point of time-limit. 28. Further, the writ Court has held that such a plea was not available to the private respondent by referring to the principle of res-judicata in view of the fact that the private respondent never took such plea at the relevant point in time. The findings of the writ Court are quoted as under: “7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The findings of the writ Court are quoted as under: “7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. It appears that the petitioner had purchased the land in question by way of registered deed of sale dated 14.01.1958 and, thereafter, constructed a house thereon. In support of her possession, the petitioner filed her correction slip issued vide Mutation Case No. 20(R)27/58-59 and also the electricity bills of the year 1960 before the Court of the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Ranchi. The private respondents filed a land restoration case being S.A.R. Case No. 294/1981 under Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act, which was allowed. However, in appeal, the Additional Collector remanded the matter to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms mainly on the ground that there was a substantial structure on the said land. After dismissal of the revision petition by the revisional authority, the petitioner preferred writ petition before Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court being C.W.J.C. No. 273/1987(R), which was decided on 27.11.1996. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment reads as follows: “7. From perusal of the appellate order and revisional order it appears to me that the revisional court also refused to interfere on the ground that the appellate court also remanded the matter to the lower court for valuation. It goes without saying that since the matter has been remanded back to respondent no. 4 it is expected that respondent no. 4 while deciding the question shall take into consideration proviso (3) to section 71-A of the said Act.” 8. However, the order dated 27.11.1996 was reviewed in Civil Review No. 64 of 1997 to the extent that the word “third proviso” mentioned in the order date 27.11.1996 was substituted as “second proviso” to Section 71-A of the C.N.T. Act. Although an L.P.A. was filed against the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 273/1987(R), but the same was withdrawn. Thus, the order passed by the Writ Court attained finality. Although an L.P.A. was filed against the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 273/1987(R), but the same was withdrawn. Thus, the order passed by the Writ Court attained finality. In view of the fact that the matter was remanded by the Appellate Court vide order dated 22.05.1986 under “second proviso” to Section 71-A of the C.N.T. Act on the point of existence of substantial structure on the land and the said order was also affirmed by Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 273 of 1987(R) holding, inter-alia, that the authority while deciding the question, shall take into consideration the second proviso to section 71-A of the C.N.T. Act, the argument of learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner that the restoration application was barred by limitation, is not tenable. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the judgment of Jai Mangal Oraon (Supra) has been rendered subsequently and as such the ground of limitation was not urged on earlier occasion. This argument of the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable. The issue of limitation was very well available before the petitioner irrespective of the judgment of theHon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Jai Mangal Oraon (Supra), but the same was not raised in the earlier round of litigation and as such now on the basis of the judgment rendered in the case of Jai Mangal Oraon (Supra), the petitioner cannot be allowed to raise the issue of limitation at this stage, as the same is hit by the provisions of Explanation (iv) of Section 11 of the C.P.C.........” 29. In view of the aforesaid findings and also going through the aforesaid reasons cited by the writ Court, no case has been made out by the learned counsel for the private respondent for giving any benefit of pronouncement of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jai Mangal Oraon (Supra). 30. The second point for consideration is whether, the appellants can claim return of the entire land under the facts and circumstances of this case. 31. 30. The second point for consideration is whether, the appellants can claim return of the entire land under the facts and circumstances of this case. 31. This Court is of the considered view that after the order judgment passed in CWJC No. 273 of 1987 (R), the only question which remained to be considered by the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi was the compensation to be fixed under proviso (2) to section 71-A of the CNT Act as a substantial structure was found on the land which was constructed prior to 1969 i.e. prior to introduction of section 71-A in the CNT Act vide amendment in the year 1969. The order of remand passed by the appellate authority was final and binding on the parties. In view of the aforesaid, the appellants are not entitled to claim the return of the entire land claiming illegal dispossession under the facts and circumstances of this case. 32. The third point for consideration is whether the appellants are entitled for equivalent alternative land in terms of proviso (2) to section 71-A of the CNT Act. 33. Consequent to the order of remand, the compensation was fixed by the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi @ 18,000/- per Katha vide order dated 15th March 2003. Both the parties were aggrieved by the order fixing compensation dated 15th March 2003 and after appellate and revisional authorities refused to interfere with the order fixing the compensation dated 15th March 2003 the matter came before the writ Court in the aforesaid two writ petitions being W.P. (C) No. 5458 of 2005 and W.P. (C) No. 507 of 2006. In the writ proceedings the appellants contended that the compensation was inadequate and not in terms of proviso (2) to section 71-A of the CNT Act and also prayed for equivalent alternative land in terms of proviso (2) of the Act itself. 34. The argument of the private respondent for equivalent alternative land in terms of proviso (2) to the CNT Act instead of compensation has been duly considered by the writ Court and rejected by citing the following reasons: “......As regards the argument of the learned Sr. 34. The argument of the private respondent for equivalent alternative land in terms of proviso (2) to the CNT Act instead of compensation has been duly considered by the writ Court and rejected by citing the following reasons: “......As regards the argument of the learned Sr. counsel for the private respondents that they are entitled to get an alternative holding of the equivalent value of the vicinity, on bare reading of the provision of “second proviso” to Section 71-A of the C.N.T. Act, it would be evident that two options are available to the transferee i.e. either to pay compensation, as may be determined by the Commissioner or to ensure availability of an alternative holding to the transferor/displaced person. The transferor cannot force the transferee to provide an alternative holding to him in all cases.” 35. This Court is of the considered view that the writ Court has assigned sound reasons to reject the plea of granting equivalent alternative land and, accordingly, the argument of the appellants that they should be granted equivalent alternative land instead of monetary compensation is rejected. 36. The fourth point for consideration is whether the appellants are entitled to further modification in the rate of compensation, over and above the modification made by the writ Court by directing that the compensation is to be paid at the government rate prevalent as on 15th March 2003. 37. With regards to adequacy of monetary compensation, the writ Court has modified the compensation in favour of the appellants by citing reasons as follows: “......As regards the other argument of the learned Sr. counsel for the private respondents that the compensation fixed by the Courts below is not sufficient, on perusal of the impugned order of the L.R.D.C. dated 15.03.2003, it appears that the learned Court below has decided the compensation of the said land as Rs. 18,000/- per Katha, however, the basis of such computation of the compensation has not been assigned. In the appeal, the Additional Collector while taking into consideration the claim of the private respondents about inadequacy of compensation, has held that had the claim been decided in the year 1986 itself, there would not have been any dispute with regard to the amount of compensation. The revisional authority has also taken the same view while deciding the adequacy of compensation. The revisional authority has also taken the same view while deciding the adequacy of compensation. The Courts below, however, have failed to take into consideration that till 2003 the compensation amount was not decided by any of the Courts and only in the year 2003 the compensation was decided. Thus, the Courts below ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the delay has not occurred due to the fault on the part of the private respondents, rather it was due to the pendency of the proceeding before the competent authority. On perusal of the second proviso to Section 71-A of the C.N.T. Act, it would appear that the purpose of providing compensation is the rehabilitation of the displaced person and as such the same should be determined keeping in mind that the member of Scheduled Tribe, who has been displaced from any land, should get sufficient amount of compensation for his rehabilitation. If the reasoning given by the lower Court is accepted, the purpose for which the “second proviso” has been consciously put by the legislature in Section 71-A of the C.N.T. Act, will definitely get frustrated and no displaced person can get adequate compensation. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, W.P. (C) No. 507 of 2006 is, hereby, dismissed and W.P. (C) No. 5458 of 2005 is disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi to fix the compensation of the land in question taking into consideration the Government rate of the land prevailing as on 15.03.2003 and to disburse it in accordance with law.” 38. This Court finds that the private respondent had deposited the compensation amount as back as on 27th September 2005 before the Court of Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi as per her calculation regarding the rate fixed by the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi vide order dated 15th March 2003 but the appellants did not take that amount and continued to contest the matter before this Court. The writ Court while fixing the compensation has modified the orders passed by the SAR Court dated 15th March 2003 only to the extent that the appellants would be entitled to compensation at the government rate prevailing as on 15th March 2003. The writ Court while fixing the compensation has modified the orders passed by the SAR Court dated 15th March 2003 only to the extent that the appellants would be entitled to compensation at the government rate prevailing as on 15th March 2003. This Court is of the considered view that reference to the government rate of land prevailing as on 15th March 2003 is just and proper and serves the interest of justice. Accordingly, the order of the writ Court for payment of compensation at the government rate prevalent as on 15th March 2003 does not call for any interference. 39. As a cumulative effect of the findings, no case for interference with the impugned order has been made out, either by the appellants or by the cross-objector. 40. The quantification of compensation in terms of the impugned order passed by the writ Court is yet to be done. Accordingly, Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi is directed to quantify the compensation amount within a period of one month from today and the differential amount is to be deposited by the private respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of fixation of the quantum of compensation by the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi. 41. The matter shall be listed on 1st September 2023 before the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi. 42. The present appeal and also the cross objection are dismissed with the aforesaid direction regarding quantification and payment of compensation to the appellants. 43. Pending I.A. if any, is closed.