The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed an appeal filed against the order/judgment in which an area of land has been ordered to be restored to the private respondents. The court ruled that Section 23 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (CNT), which deals with the devolution of land when a Raiyat dies intestate, does not automatically vest the land upon the ex-landlord.
Brief Facts:
The property was initially registered in the name of Most. Sukro being the sole successor of the deceased Mangru Oraon following her death, the property reverted to the landlord of the village under Section 23 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. The landlord resumed possession and settled the property with Permeshwar Misir. Permeshwar Misir made significant improvements to the land, later transferring 44 Kattas of the area to the original writ petitioner. Subsequently, the property was fully transferred to the petitioner through registered sale deeds. An SAR case initiated by private respondents, led to the Special Officer restoring the land to them under Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. The original writ petitioner appealed the restoration order, but both the Deputy Commissioner and the revisional authority rejected the appeal. A writ petition challenging these decisions was dismissed by the Single Judge, leading to the current intra-court appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the recorded tenant, who passed away without heirs, resulted in the property becoming uncultivated and pursuant to Section 23 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, the right of raiyat interest devolved upon the village landlord. The landlord resumed possession and settled the property with Permeshwar Misir. It is further argued that the private respondents were dispossessed and their petition for land restoration filed before the S.A.R. Court is time-barred. It is argued that as the property is in the municipal area of Ranchi, the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, of 1908 only became applicable in 1982. Therefore, the Act does not apply to the case, given the dispossession occurred in 1942.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the documents provided by the petitioner including a SADA settlement and lease agreement, were deemed non-genuine by the S.A.R. Officer and the S.A.R Officer found that the petitioner failed to prove the authenticity of these documents, and confirmed the respondents as the descendants of the recorded raiyat. It is argued that the revisional authority noted the absence of documents related to the period before 1980, rejecting the petitioner's argument of the restoration application being time-barred. It is further contended that the petitioner lost before all three authorities, and there is no illegality in their decisions.
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 is a land rights legislation that was created to protect the land rights of the tribal population of the Jharkhand instituted by the British. A major feature of the C.N.T. Act is that it prohibits the transfer of land to non-tribals to ensure community ownership. A transfer of land from tribal to non-tribal is allowed under Section 49 only for industries or any other purposes and permission of such land transfer is given by the revenue department.
The court clarified that Section 23 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, which deals with the devolution of land when a Raiyat dies intestate, does not automatically vest the land upon the ex-landlord. Unlike Sections 72 and 73, there is no specified procedure for vesting under Section 23. The court emphasized that the primary objective of the Act is to protect the interests of tribal people in the Chota Nagpur region. The court highlighted the significance of Section 71A, introduced in the Schedule Area Regulation Act, 1969, which empowers the Deputy Commissioner to restore land to a Raiyat in case of a violation of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act.
The court held that the restoration application was filed within the stipulated time. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the land was settled in 1942, emphasizing that the restoration application was filed within 30 years from the date of the deed of registration in 1982. Overall, the court upheld the findings of the revenue authorities and the Single Judge, stating that the conclusions did not suffer from errors.
The decision of the Court:
The court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Kunti Devi & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navneet Kumar
Case No.: L.P.A. No.390 of 2018
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Suresh Nand Tiwary
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Bhaiya Vishwajit Kumar, Mr. Manoj Kr. Choubey, Mr. Madhav Pasad
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
