Jharkhand High Court
Pritam Singh And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 6 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 4897 of 2006
Pritam Singh and Ors. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
State of Jharkhand and Ors. ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Ajay Sah, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Prashant Kr. Rai, A.C. to S.C. (L&C) I
---
08/06.02.2023 I.A. No.674 of 2023
Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners along with Mr. Ajay Sah, Advocate.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that I.A. No.674 of
2023 has been filed for substitution of legal heirs and successors of
petitioner nos.1, 2 and 6 who have expired during pendency of the
present case. He submits that the details of the legal heirs and
successors of the aforesaid petitioners have been given in paragraphs
5, 6, and 7 of the interlocutory application. He also submits that he has
already filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the proposed legal heirs and
successors of the aforesaid three writ petitioners.
3. Counsel for the respondent - State has no objection to the
aforesaid prayer for substitution.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
considering the averments made in the Interlocutory application, the
prayer for substitution of petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 6 is hereby allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to carry out the
necessary amendment in the cause title of the writ petition by deleting
the names of petitioner nos.1, 2 and 6 and inserting the names of their
legal heirs and successors during the course of the day.
5. I.A. No.674 of 2023 is allowed accordingly.
W.P.(C). No.4897 of 2006
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the entire
proceedings under Section 71A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act is hit by
the principles of res judicata in view of the fact that two of the full
brothers of the petitioners had earlier participated in the proceedings
under Section 71A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act in S.A.R. Case
No.267 of 1976-1977, in which, ultimately an amount of
compensation was to be paid. Against the quantum of compensation,
those two brothers had moved the appellate authority, but the appeal
was dismissed for default. He submits that the present respondent
nos.6 and 7 filed another application for restoration of land under
Section 71A vide petition dated 26.11.1996. He submits that the two
brothers having moved earlier, the subsequent petitioner filed by the
other two brothers is barred by res-judicata. The learned counsel
submits that the principle of res judicata will apply in view of the fact
that the two full brothers of the petitioners had already participated in
the earlier proceedings for restoration under Section 71A. The learned
counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following judgments:
(i) (1996) 2 PLJR 719 para 3 and 5
(ii) (2002) 3 JLJR 126 para 4 and 6
(iii) (2007) 8 SCC 329 para 9, 17 & 18
7. The learned counsel has also submitted that the property
involved in this case was sold by the father of the respondent nos.6
and 7 to the father of the present petitioners vide registered sale deed
dated 31.01.1963 and therefore the proceedings for restoration has
been filed after 33 years 10 months and 23 days.
8. So far as limitation is concerned, the learned counsel has
submitted that there was an amendment in Article 65 of the Limitation
Act by virtue of Bihar Schedule Area Regulation 1969 and 30-years
limitation was prescribed and accordingly submits that the prescribed
limitation for filing an application under Section 71A would be only
30 years and no more. He has further submitted that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in various judgments including the judgment passed in
the case of Situ Sahu reported in (2004) 4 JCR 211 SC has held that
though no limitation has been prescribed for filing an application
under Section 71A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, but some reasonable
time has to be there and has held that an application filed after about
40 years was beyond the reasonable time. Learned counsel has also
submitted that the said judgment has been followed by this Court in
CWJC No.2022 of 2000 (R). He submits that the aforesaid
amendment in Article 65 of the Limitation Act through Bihar
Schedule Area Regulation 1969 was not brought to the notice of
Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the aforesaid judgment.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - State,
on the other hand, has submitted that there is no question of
applicability of res judicata in the present case, in as much as, the two
brothers of the petitioners had participated in the earlier proceedings
and the matter regarding dispossession under Section 71A was not
even decided on merit, rather it was disposed of on the basis of some
kind of compromise between the petitioners and his two full brothers
of the private respondents . Learned counsel has also submitted that as
per the application for restoration, the petitioners were in possession
of the property by virtue of a tenant over the property and it has been
specifically stated in the application that till the year 1980, the father
of the private respondents used to take rent for the premises involved
in the present case.
10. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioners were the
tenants over the property and they continued to be tenant over the
property by giving rent and the sale deed dated 31.01.1963 is of no use
as the required permission from the Deputy Commissioner for transfer
of land involved in the present case was never taken. Learned counsel
has also submitted that the authority had only remanded the matter for
fresh consideration and these disputed questions of fact may not be
entered into at this stage of the litigation.
11. Arguments concluded.
12. Post this case for judgment on 31.03.2023.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Manoj/Saurav
