Jharkhand High Court

Chhunu Oraon vs State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 27 October, 2021

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
                      W.P.(C) No. 71 of 2004
                               ........

Chhunu Oraon                                    .... ..... Petitioner
                              Versus

State of Jharkhand through the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi & Ors. .... ..... Respondents

WITH W.P.(C) No. 3777 of 2003 .......

Smt. Veena Rani Verma & Ors. .... ..... Petitioners Versus State of Jharkhand & Ors. .... ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing) ............

For the Petitioner            : None
For the Resp- State           : Mr. P.C. Roy, SC (L&C)-I

For the Private Respondent(s) : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate [In W.P.(C) No. 71 of 2004] For the Petitioners : Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Mr. P.C. Roy, SC (L&C)-I For the Respondent No. 6 : None.

[In W.P.(C) No. 3777 of 2003] ........

22/27.10.2021.

Heard, learned counsel Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha for the petitioners, in W.P.(C) No.3777/2003 and as counsel for the private- respondents in W.P.(C) No.71/2004.

Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.71/2004.

Under the aforesaid circumstances, both the writ petitions are being heard on merits and disposed of by this common order.

Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3777/2003, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha has submitted that same impugned orders have been assailed by both the sides.

Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3777/2003, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha has submitted that the present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.10.1994 passed by the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi (respondent no.

4) in S.A.R. Case No. 61 of 1989-90, whereby court of Special Officer has directed the petitioners to pay compensation worth

Rs. 97,895/- i.e. Rs. 5,000/- only per Katha to the respondent nos. 5 and 6, under the second proviso to Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act and for quashing the order dated 30.10.1996 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in S.A.R. Appeal No. 42 R-15 of 1994-95, by which appeal filed by the respondent no. 5 has been disposed of and the same has been remanded to the learned Special Officer to fix the compensation as per Market Value of the land and also for quashing the order dated 17.05.2003, passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Ranchi Revenue Revision No. 583 of 1996, dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3777/2003, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha has submitted that writ petitioners namely, (1) Smt. Veena Rani Verma, W/o late Krishna Kant Verma, (2) Dr. Radha Kant Verma, [(3) Rama Kant Verma, whose name has been deleted vide order dated 27.07.2021], 4(i) Sudha Verma, W/o Late Mohan Kant Verma, 4(ii) Mona Prasad, D/O Late Mohan Kant Verma, 4(iii) Sonali Verma, D/o late Mohan Kant Verma and 4(iv) Mitu Verma, D/O Late Mohan Kant Verma have preferred this writ petition on the ground that the land was transferred after following the due process of law as the ancestors of the private- respondent no. 5 namely, Charli Linda and respondent no.6 namely, Chunu Oroan have voluntarily surrendered 0.12½ acres of land out of R.S. Plot No.1217, 0.15 acres out of R.S. Plot No.1218 and 0.05 acres, out of R.S. Plot No.1219 of Khata No.28 before the ex-landlord vide deed of surrender dated 24.01.1948 and the said land was subsequently settled by the ex-landlord in favour of Uma Kant Sahay, father-in- law of the petitioner no.1 and ancestor of the petitioner nos.2 to 4 through registered deed of Chapparbandi settlement dated 23.04.1948 putting the settlee in possession. The settlee constructed a pucca boundary wall and after getting the plan sanctioned by the Ranchi Municipality in the year 1948, constructed pucca residential building and other substantial structures over the same in the year 1949 after investing more than Rs.30,000/-.

Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.3777/2003, Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha has further submitted that the property was also mutated before the Office of Circle Officer, Town Anchal Ranchi Municipality in the year 1950 and to that effect, up-to-date rent are being paid.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that invoking Section 71 A of the C.N.T. Act, which has been inserted w.e.f. 1969 (Bihar Regulation- 1 of 1969), though such transfer and possession of the petitioner by way of registered deed of Chapparbandi Settlement dated 23.04.1948, is not applicable in the present case, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Jai Mangal Oraon Vs. Mira Nayak(smt.) & Others reported in (2000) 5 SCC 141 and in the case of Fulchand Munda Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2008) 14 SCC 774 = 2008 2 JCR (SC) 1 = 2008 1 JLJR (SC) 309 and in the case of Situ Sahu & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2004 8 SCC 340 = 2004 4 JCR (SC) 211 = 2004 4 JLJR (SC) 109.

Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 3777/2003 has further submitted that the impugned orders are bad in law and restoration cannot be allowed under Section 71A of the CNT Act as the provisions under Section 71A of CNT Act is not applicable in the present case.

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Prakash Chandra Roy, S.C. (L&C)-I has submitted that though the documents brought on record shows that the petitioners have possession over the same on the basis of registered deed of Chapparbandi Settlement dated 23.04.1948 and plan has also been sanctioned by the Ranchi Municipality in the year 1948 and Circle Officer, Ranchi (Sadar), Town Anchal has also mutated the name of the petitioners, as such, the application of Section 71A of the CNT Act is not permissible in the present fact of the case, as such, this Court may pass necessary order.

Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that W.P.(C) No. 3777/2003 preferred by the petitioners with respect to the invocation

of Section 71A of CNT Act is not maintainable as the land was surrendered by the ancestors of the respondent no. 5, Charli Linda and the respondent no. 6, Chunu Oraon on 21.04.1948 by registered deed of surrender though permission has not been obtained from the Deputy Commissioner, but registered deed of Chapparbandi Settlement was made on 23.04.1948 putting the settlee in possession and plan has been sanctioned by Ranchi Municipality in the year 1948. Thereafter, the structure has been constructed in the year 1949 and the land was also mutated in the office of Circle Office (Town) Ranchi Anchal in the year 1950 and to that effect, rent has been paid by the petitioners and municipal receipt has also been issued.

Since, Section 71A of the CNT Act has been inserted by Bihar Regulation 1 of 1969, as such, in view of judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Jai Mangal Oraon (Supra), Fulchand Munda (Supra) and Situ Sahu (Supra), this Court is inclined to quash the order dated 27.10.1994 passed by the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi (respondent no. 4) in S.A.R. Case No. 61 of 1989-90, order dated 30.10.1996 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in S.A.R. Appeal No. 42 R-15 of 1994-95 and order dated 17.05.2003 passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Ranchi Revenue Revision No. 583 of 1996.

Accordingly, W.P. (C) No. 3777/2003 is allowed. So far W.P. (C) No. 71/2004 is concerned, since the petitioner has never assailed the registered deed of surrender dated 21.04.1948 and it has been admitted that the deed of surrender was executed by ancestors of the petitioner, as such the registered deed of Chapparbandi Settlement dated 23.04.1948 has been executed in favour of the respondent nos. 2 to 5 / petitioners of W.P. (C) No. 3777/2003.

Accordingly, W.P. (C) No. 71/2004 is hereby dismissed.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sunil/-