The Jharkhand High Court ruled that the assessment of contradictory evidence, leading to the reversal of an initial compensation decision, was justified. The court emphasized the necessity for clear and consistent evidence in land dispute cases, particularly when applying the provisions of the CNT Act 1908.
Brief Facts:
This case involves a land dispute in Village Dighiya, Ranchi. A restoration application under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act was filed by private respondents. The land, sold in 1946 and with constructed houses, was initially allowed to be retained by petitioners upon compensation. However, appellate and revisional authorities reversed this decision. The petitioners appealed against these reversals, and the current L.P.A. is filed against the single judge's dismissal of their writ petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel argued that the initial order by the Special Officer Scheduled Area Regulation, which was based on a report indicating the presence of substantial structures on the land before the enactment of the Scheduled Area Regulation Act 1969, should be upheld. This decision was in line with the second proviso of Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy (CNT) Act 1908, providing for compensation in such cases. The counsel submitted that the appellate authority's reversal of this decision was unjust, as it disregarded the evidence and facts presented initially. The petitioner's counsel believed that the subsequent report, which contradicted the earlier findings, should not have been given precedence over the initial report.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent's counsel maintained that the initial decision to compensate was based on a conflicting report about the existence and age of the structures on the land. They highlighted that this report was in contradiction to an earlier report, which indicated construction activities over the last 25 years, thus post-1969. Based on the lack of substantial pre-1969 construction, as per the earlier report, the respondent's counsel argued that the transfer and subsequent compensation order under the CNT Act 1908 were invalid. They emphasized the importance of consistent and reliable evidence in such land dispute cases.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that the Special Officer Scheduled Area Regulation determined the land transfer had occurred without the required permission from the Deputy Commissioner, as stipulated in Section 46 of the Act. This determination was a critical element in the initial analysis.
It was noted by the court that the Circle Officer was tasked to provide a report to verify the presence and timing of constructions on the land, a pivotal step in deciding the applicability of the Scheduled Area Regulation Act 1969.
The bench remarked on the existence of two contrasting reports regarding when the construction took place. The first, dated 27.08.1997, suggested the construction dates back to the last 25 years. In contrast, the second report, dated 21.10.1997, pointed to construction spanning the last 35 years. The court pointed out that the Special Officer's decision leaned on the latter report, which implied that the construction predated the Scheduled Area Regulation Act 1969. This presumption significantly influenced the proceedings that followed.
The court further referred to the judgement in the case of Bank of India vs. Apurba Kumar Saha, wherein it was held that an employee who had refused to avail the opportunities provided to him in a disciplinary proceeding to defend himself against the charges of misconduct involving his integrity and dishonesty, cannot be permitted to complain later that he had been denied a reasonable opportunity of defending himself of the charges levelled against him after the disciplinary proceeding conducted against him by the Bank-employer had resulted in punishment.
Additionally, the bench highlighted that based on this later report, the Special Officer decided to grant compensation to the landowner under the second proviso of Section 71-A of the CNT Act 1908. This crucial decision was contingent on how the period of construction was interpreted about the implementation of the Scheduled Area Regulation Act 1969.
The decision of the Court:
In this case, considering all the observations made and the overall context of this case, the court dismissed the appeal holding that the judgement passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from no infirmity.
Case Title: Ram Sewak Sahu and others vs. The State of Jharkhand and others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navneet Kumar
Case No.: L.P.A. No. 674 of 2018
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Vijoy Pratap Singh, Mrs. Bandana Kumari Sinha
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, Mr. Suman Marandi, Mr. Rahul Kumar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
