Jharkhand High Court
Lagni Mundain vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 July, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2025:JHHC:20479
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 668 of 2015
Lagni Mundain, wife of late Arjun Tuti, resident of Sarna Toli, Hatma,
P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Lalpur, Dist. Ranchi
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary (Revenue & Land Reforms), Govt. of Jharkhand, Project
Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Ranchi
3. Commissioner South Chhotanagpur Division, P.O. Main G.P.O., P.S.
Kotwali, Ranchi
4. The Deputy Commissioner, P.O. Main G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, Ranchi
5. Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, P.O. Main G.P.O., P.S.
Kotwali, Ranchi
6. Circle Officer, Nagri, P.O. & P.S. Nagri, Ranchi
7. Babita Singh, wife of Lal Pradeep Kumar Singh, resident of Lal Gutua,
P.O. Lal Gutua, P.S. Nagri, District Ranchi ... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (C) No. 124 of 2017
1. Bimla Devi wife of Sri Adya Shankar Pandey, resident of Garhdevi
Mohalla, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, Dist. Garhwa
2. Sangeeta Kumari, wife of Sri Jayendra Narayan Shambhu resident of
Sahijama, P.O. & P.S. Garhwa, Dist. Garhwa
3. Gagan Sharma, son of Late Kapildeo Vishwakarma, resident of
Dineshwar Nagar, P.O. Harmu, P.S. Argora, Dist. Ranchi
4. Gayanti Singh, wife of Budhi Singh, resident of Rajrappa, Qr. No. BTS
S/50, P.O. & P.S. Rajrappa, Dist. Hazaribagh
5. Pradeep Kumar, son of Bhuwaneshwar Prasad, resident of Panchsheel
Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Barh, Dist. Ranchi
All presently residing at Daladali Chowk, P.O. Lalgutwa, P.S. Ratu, Dist.
Ranchi ... ... Petitioners
1
2025:JHHC:20479
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi having its
office at P.O., P.S. and Dist. Ranchi
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi having its office at P.O. G.P.O.,
P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Ranchi
4. Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi having its office
at P.O., P.S. & Dist. Ranchi
5. Lagni Tutti, wife of Late Arjun Munda Tutti, resident of Sarna Toli,
P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Lalpur, Dist. Ranchi
... ... Respondents
With
W.P. (C) No. 220 of 2017
Babita Singh, wife of Lal Pradeep Kumar Singh, resident of Lalgutuwa,
P.O. Lalgutuwa, P.S. Nagri, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Region, Ranchi, P.O. + P.S.
Kotwali, Dist. Ranchi
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O. + P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Ranchi
4. The Special Officer, SAR, Civil Area Regulation, Ranchi, P.O. + P.S.
Kotwali, Dist. Ranchi
5. Smt. Lagni Tutti, wife of Late Arjun Munda Tooti, resident of Sarna
Toli, P.O. Ranchi University, P.S. Lalpur, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand
... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Aniket Rohan, Advocate
[in WPC No. 220 of 2017]
2025:JHHC:20479
: Mr. K. K. Ambastha, Advocate
Mr. Suraj Verma, Advocate
Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
[in WPC No. 668 of 2015]
: Mr. Rahul Kumar Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwary, Advocate
Ms. Swati Singh, Advocate
For the Resp. No. 7 : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Aniket Rohan, Advocate
[in WPC No. 668 of 2015]
For the Resp. No. 5 : Mr. K. K. Ambastha, Advocate
Mr. Suraj Verma, Advocate
Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
[WPC No. 124 of 2017 & 220/2017]
For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate
[WPC No. 124 of 2017]
---
Reserved on 06.03.2025 Pronounced on 25.07.2025
1. This batch of writ petitions arise out of common order passed in
S.A.R. Case No. 482 of 2007-08 against which SAR Appeal No. 111(R)
15 of 2012-13 was dismissed and then SAR Revision No. 02/2015 and
03/2015 were also dismissed. W.P. (C) No. 668 of 2015 was filed during
the pendency of the revision petitions alleging that the S.A.R. officer had
suo moto stayed the execution of order of restoration passed in S.A.R.
Case No. 482 of 2007-08 without there being any order of stay from the
competent authority. However, during the pendency of the aforesaid writ
petition, the revision petitions were dismissed and the persons against
whom the order of eviction was passed under section 71A of Chota
Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred as to the "CNT Act")
and they have filed the other two writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.124 of
2017 and W.P.(C) No. 220 of 2017 in which order of status quo in
connection with their dispossession has been passed by this Court and
these cases were tagged and remained pending before this Court.
2025:JHHC:20479
2. In W.P.(C) No.124 of 2017, the order of status quo was passed on
13.01.2017 and in W.P.(C) No.220 of 2017, the order of status quo was
passed on 17.01.2017.
3. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 668 of 2015 is the private
respondent in W.P.(C) No.124 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No.220 of 2017,
whose predecessor in interest was the applicant in petition seeking
restoration of land under section 71A of C.N.T Act, 1908 (hereinafter
referred to as the "applicant")
4. W.P. (C) No. 668 of 2015 has been filed for the following reliefs: -
"for issuance of an appropriate writ, rule, order, direction for
quashing the order contained in letter no. 02 (ii) dated
22.01.2015 passed by the Special Officer, Scheduled Areas
Regulation, Ranchi in S.A.R. Case No. 482 of 2007-08
(Annexure-4) by which the Respondent No. 5 has illegally
passed an order directing the Circle Officer, Nagri, Ranchi to
stay the delivery of possession with respect to the land 0.82
Acres of land comprised within Plot No. 111 of Khata No. 116
situated at Mauza Gutua, P.S. Nagri, District Ranchi although
order has been passed for restoration of the aforementioned
lands in favour of the petitioner under Section 71 (A) of the
C.N.T. Act by the Special Officer, S.A.R., Ranchi in SAR Case
No. 482 of 2007-08 and the same has been affirmed by the
Learned Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in SAR Appeal No.
111(R) 15 of 2012-13 and notice was issued by the Circle
Officer for effecting delivery of possession in favour of the
Petitioner with respect to the aforementioned land on
22.01.2015 but the Respondent No. 6 in arbitrary and
colourable exercise of power has illegally passed an order
staying the delivery of possession without any order of the
competent authority flouting the order passed by the superior
authority showing undue favour to Respondent No. 7 and for
such other relief or reliefs to which the Petitioner is legally
entitled to."
2025:JHHC:20479
5. W.P. (C) No. 124 of 2017 has been filed for the following reliefs: -
"a. For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders,
direction/directions or writ in the nature of certiorari for
quashing of the order dated 14.12.2016 passed by the
Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in SAR
Revision No. 2/2015 and SAR Revision No. 3/2015 whereby
and where under the revision application filed against the
order dated 11.06.2014 passed by Learned Deputy
Commissioner, Ranchi in SAR Appeal No. 111 R 15/2012-13
has been dismissed and order dated 11.06.2014 passed by
Learned Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in SAR Appeal No.
111 R 15/2012-13 upholding the order of the learned Special
Officer, SAR, Ranchi in SAR Case No. 482/2007-08 for
restoration of the land appertaining to Khata No. 116, Plot
No. 111 admeasuring 0.82 acre situated at Gutuwa, P.S.
Nagri, Dist. Ranchi has been upheld."
6. W.P. (C) No. 220 of 2017 has been filed for the following reliefs: -
"(a) In the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated
14.12.2016 passed in Ranchi SAR Revision No. 02/2015 by
respondent No. 2, whereby and whereunder, the order dated
11.6.2014 passed by respondent No. 3 in SAR Appeal No. 111
R 15/2013-13 and order dated 4.6.2012 passed in SAR Case
No. 482/2007-08, rejected with respect to the restoration of
the land of Khata No. 116, Plot No. 111 having an area of
29.41 decimals of the petitioner, have been directed to be
restored to respondent No. 5, which is absolutely illegal."
Arguments on behalf of the successor of the applicant for restoration
of land under Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 -- the writ
petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 668 of 2015 and the private respondent in
W.P.(C) Nos. 124 of 2017 and 220 of 2017.
7. Learned counsel for the Applicant, who is petitioner in W.P.(C)
No. 668 of 2015 has submitted that this writ petition has been filed in
view of the fact that in spite of order of restoration passed under Section
2025:JHHC:20479
71-A of the CNT Act in favour of the petitioner, the Special Officer,
Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi has himself stayed its execution
without there being any stay order from the competent court of law. The
learned counsel submits that such a course was absolutely impermissible
in the eyes of law and therefore the conduct of the Special Officer is under
cloud. The learned counsel has further submitted that the application for
restoration of land was allowed by the SAR Court and the appeal against
the SAR Court's order was dismissed and the revision was pending at that
point of time, but no order of stay was passed.
8. The learned counsel has further submitted that the application for
restoration was allowed by the SAR Court and the appeal against the SAR
Court's order was dismissed and ultimately the revisions were also
dismissed and only the revisional order is under challenge in W.P. (C) No.
124 of 2017 and W.P. (C) No. 220 of 2017 which have been filed by the
persons who are in possession of the property and there is no specific
challenge to the order of restoration passed in S.A.R. Case No. 482 of
2007-08 nor there is any specific challenge to the order of the appellate
authority dismissing the appeal and therefore no relief can be granted to
the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.124 of 2017 and W.P. (C) No. 220 of 2017
(hereinafter referred to as the writ petitioners). It has been submitted that
there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the
learned Commissioner dismissing the revision petitions.
9. The learned counsel for the Applicant has also submitted that the
entire property has been transferred to third party so far as the property
involved in W.P. (C) No. 220 of 2017 is concerned, but the petitioner of
W.P. (C) No. 220 of 2017 has not disclosed this fact in the writ petition.
This amounts to material suppression before this Court. He submits that
once third-party rights have already been created, the petitioner of
W.P.(C) No. 220 of 2017 does not have any locus to file the writ petition
and therefore the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 220 of 2017 should be
2025:JHHC:20479
dismissed by imposing heavy cost on account of suppression of material
facts.
Argument of the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 124 of 2017 and
10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P. (C)
No. 124 of 2017 and also in W.P. (C) No. 220 of 2017 has submitted that
the applicant or his predecessor in interest remained dispossessed from the
property for a pretty long period of time and the applicant has rightly not
disclosed the date of dispossession as he was not aware of it. The learned
counsel has also submitted that Bhuglu Oraon had earlier instituted a case
for restoration of the land under Section 71-A of the CNT Act as back as
in the year 1985-86 being S.A.R. Case No. 14/1985-86 against Shri H. N.
Singh which was allowed vide order dated 23.09.1986, but he never
instituted any execution case and the execution stood barred by virtue of
Section 181 of the CNT Act which provides a limitation of three years for
filing an application for restoration. Section 181 of CNT Act is quoted as
under: -
"181. Limitation of time for application for execution. - No
application for the execution of a decree or order passed by
the Deputy Commissioner under this Act shall be entertained
unless such application be made] within three years from, -
(a) the date on which the decree or order is signed, or
(b) where there has been an appeal, the date of the final
decree or order of the appellate Court, or
(c ) where there has been a review of judgment, the date of the
decision on the review."
11. It has also been stated that Bhuglu Oraon again filed SAR Case
No.03 of 1999, but no positive order of restoration was passed in the said
case in view of the fact that there was already an order of restoration way
back on 23.09.1986. Thereafter, Arjun Munda purchased the property
from Bhuglu Oraon after taking permission under Section 46 of the CNT
2025:JHHC:20479
Act from the Deputy Commissioner and after purchasing the property,
Arjun Munda filed another application for restoration which is subject
matter of consideration in the present case.
12. The facts of the case revealed that Arjun Munda though purchased
the property, but neither he nor his predecessor in interest remained in
possession of the property and consequently the date of dispossession
with respect to the property dates back to the period much prior to the
compromise decree and even if the date of compromise is taken as date of
dispossession, then also application for restoration filed by Arjun Munda
was filed much after expiry of more than 34 years. The learned counsel
has submitted that though there is no period of limitation prescribed under
Section 71-A of the CNT Act but the term 'at any time' has been
interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and 'any time' does not mean
that at the sweet will of the concerned raiyat. For this, the learned counsel
has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Situ Sahu & Others vs. State of Jharkhand & Others reported in
2004 (4) JCR 211 (SC) and Pandey Oraon vs. Ram Chander Sahu &
others reported in AIR 1992 SC 195.
13. The learned counsel has also submitted that merely because the
property involved in W.P. (C) No.220 of 2017 has been transferred, the
same does not take away the locus of the petitioner to challenge the order
which have been passed against the petitioner as the petitioner could not
have passed better title than what the petitioner was having. He has relied
upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
(2001) 6 SCC 534 (Dhurandhar Prasad Singh vs. Jai Prakash
University & others) and he submits that merely because the property has
been transferred to the third party, at best the third party could have joined
the proceedings, but the same cannot be said to be a reason to deny the
locus of the petitioner to pursue the litigation. He submits that the order of
restoration of land was passed while the petitioners of W.P.(C) No. 220 of
2017 and W.P.(C) No.124 of 2017 were in possession of their respective
2025:JHHC:20479
property. It is submitted that the vendor is under a duty to protect the
interest with respect to the property which he has transferred as the vendor
cannot transfer a better title than what he possesses.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in
absence of any allegation of fraud, there cannot be any presumption of
fraud merely because there was a compromise decree. He has submitted
that Section 3 of the Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1969 simply
provides that even in case of admission or any act of the schedule tribe,
the same cannot be taken as a gospel truth and mere admission is not
sufficient and the Deputy Commissioner can certainly call upon the
parties to prove the material facts although it might have been admitted.
Section 3 of the Bihar Scheduled Area Regulation, 1969 is quoted as
under:
"3. Powers of Court to ignore admission by member of the
Scheduled Tribes.--Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in any other law for the time being in
force, the Court shall, in any suit or proceeding relating to
the transfer of land of a member of the Scheduled Tribes
as specified in Part III to the Schedule to the Constitution
(Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950, require any fact expressly
or impliedly admitted by such person to be proved
otherwise than by mere admission and the Deputy
Commissioner may also produce evidence in rebuttal."
The compromise was prior to coming into force of the Bihar Scheduled
Area Regulation, 1969. The learned counsel has also submitted that since
Arjun Munda never came in possession, therefore there was no question
of his dispossession.
Argument of the State.
15. The learned counsel for the State in W.P.(C) No. 124 of 2017 has
produced the concerned records of the case and submitted that common
2025:JHHC:20479
impugned order of W.P.(C) No. 124 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No. 220 of
2017 does not call for any interference.
16. A specific stand has been taken by the learned counsel for the State
in W.P. (C) No. 668 of 2015 that in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit,
the State has taken a ground that a revision being S.A.R. Revision
No.02/2015 has been preferred by Babita Singh, before the learned
Commissioner and as such the Deputy Commissioner sent a letter to the
S.A.R. Officer for necessary action.
Rejoinder of the Applicant
17. In response, the learned counsel for the Applicant, has referred to
the Bihar Scheduled Area Regulation, 1969 Appendix IX Section 3 to
submit that the compromise by itself is a fraud on the statute.
Findings of this Court
18. In this writ petition, the grievance of the applicant is that without
there being any stay order by the learned Commissioner, the S.A.R.
Officer, Ranchi has suo moto stayed the execution of the order of
restoration of land vide impugned order dated 22.01.2015. The perusal of
the order 22.01.2015 reveals that a petition was filed by Babita Singh,
wife of Lal Pradip Kumar Singh, informing that a revision petition was
filed and the matter was pending and had also filed a petition before the
Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner had directed the
Circle Officer to take appropriate steps. The impugned order also reveals
that a copy of the revision petition was also filed before the Circle Officer
and a prayer was made before the Circle Officer not to give effect to the
process of 'dakhal dihani' for the present and on the basis of the pendency
of the revision case, it was directed that the proceedings of 'dakhal dihani'
be kept in abeyance for the present.
19. The respondent State has also explained the position that the
process of 'dakhal dihani' for that point of time as they were informed
that revision petition was filed and it was pending and it was duly
2025:JHHC:20479
communicated by the Deputy Commissioner. This Court is of the view
that no malice as such can be attributed in the aforesaid facts and
circumstances on the concerned respondent.
20. The records of the revision case reveal that subsequently, an order
of status quo was passed at the instance of the writ petitioner of W.P. (C)
No. 668 of 2015 herself, and following order was passed on 27.10.2015
by the learned Commissioner, which is quoted as under:
"A petition on behalf of the O.P. (Smt. Lagni Tuti) has been
filed for maintaining status quo.
Issue instruction to S.S.P., Ranchi to stop construction and
maintain status quo till disposal of the case in this court."
21. The fact also remains that during the pendency of the writ petition
before this Court challenging the order of the learned Commissioner
dismissing the Revision Case No. 2 of 2015 and 3 of 2015, orders of
status quo have been passed. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, this Court is of the view that at this stage, no useful
purpose will be served by quashing the order dated 22.01.2015 which is
the order impugned in W.P.(C) No. 668 of 2015 and it is suffice to
observe that the final order to be passed in W.P.(C) No.124 of 2017 and
W.P. (C) No. 220 of 2017 would govern the respective parties of the case.
22. W.P. (C) No. 668 of 2015 is accordingly disposed of.
W.P.(C) No. 124 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No. 220 of 2017
23. W.P.(C) No. 124 of 2017 and W.P.(C) No. 220 of 2017 arise out of
common impugned orders passed by the learned Special Officer,
Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi on 04.06.2012 in S.A.R. Case No.
482 of 2007-08; the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner,
Ranchi in S.A.R. Appeal No. 111R15/2012-13 dated 11.06.2014; and the
order passed by the learned Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division,
Ranchi in S.A.R. Revision Nos. 2 and 3 of 2015 dated 14.12.2016. As the
facts in both writ petitions are identical, the arguments have been
advanced from the records of W.P.(C) No. 124 of 2017.
2025:JHHC:20479
24. It is not in dispute that the property involved in this case, that is, the
land under Khata No.116, Plot No.111 of village Gutuwa was recorded in
the revisional survey records in the name of Bhada Oraon @ Kaimi and
after his death, it was inherited by his only son namely Bhaglu Oroan.
25. Bhaglu Oroan sold the property to one Arjun Munda (husband of
the applicant) vide registered sale deed no.5751 dated 26.04.1990 after
obtaining permission from the Deputy Commissioner. Thereafter, Arjun
Munda filed an application seeking restoration of land under section 71 A
of the CNT Act, 1908 on 25.01.2008. It has been recorded in the order
dated 06.03.2025 by which the judgement was reserved, that no
foundational details with regards to the date of dispossession or the
manner of dispossession has been given in the prescribed application
seeking restoration of land. The paragraphs 3,4 and 5 of the aforesaid
order is quoted as under: -
"3. During the course of hearing and as per the records
produced from the SAR Court, it transpired that in the
application for restoration filed by Arjun Munda dated
25.01.2008 pursuant to which the concerned proceedings are
arising, under the column 'the date of dispossession', it has
been written 'he does not know' and under the column 'as to
whether the transfer has taken place through registered deed,
mortgaged, lease etc.' he has again written 'he does not
know'. The application for restoration has been perused by all
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. The
original copy of the application for restoration has been
produced by the learned counsel for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the State is directed to submit the
records before this Court for further scrutiny and perusal.
However, the aforesaid facts which have been mentioned
herein is not in dispute.
2025:JHHC:20479
5. The learned counsel for the parties has been specifically
asked as to whether there is any material to show the date of
dispossession or the manner in which Arjun Munda has been
dispossessed from the property apart from the application filed
by the Arjun Munda, they have submitted that there is no other
material. However, it has been submitted that there was a
compromise way back in the year 1963 wherein the title suit
ended into a compromise."
26. The specific case of the petitioners is that Bhaglu Oroan transferred
the land to Birendra Prasad Singh and Hridya Nand Singh, both sons of
Jitan Singh in the year 1946 upon consideration amount of Rs.3280/- and
they came in peaceful possession of the same. It is their further case that
when their peaceful possession was sought to be questioned, they filed a
suit before the Munsif, Ranchi bearing Suit No.273 of 1963 seeking
declaration of their title in which Bhaglu Oroan was the sole defendant.
However, the said suit ended in a compromise. The decree in the suit has
been annexed as Annexure - 1 which refers to Khewat No.2, R.S. Khata
No.116, R.S. Plot No.111 Village Gutwa area 82 decimals. It is their
further case that Birendra Prasad Singh and Hridya Nand Singh
transferred the land in question to Jhanjhari Kunwar @ Sanjhari Kunwar
vide registered sale deed no.5761 dated 26.08.1963 (Annexure - 2) and
pursuant there to Sanjhari Kunwar came in peaceful possession and the
land was mutated in her name and she paid rent and rent receipt was
issued by the competent authority. The petitioners purchased different
portions of the property whose details are as under:
Petitioner No.1 3 decimals of land Sale deed no.3667 dated 13.03.2006
of plot no.111
Petitioner No.2 6 decimals of land Sale deed no.3665 dated 13.03.2006
of plot no.111
Petitioner No.3 9 decimals of land Sale deed no.3663 dated 13.03.2006
of plot no.111
2025:JHHC:20479
Petitioner No.4 6 decimals of land Sale deed no.3666 dated 13.03.2006
of plot no.111
Petitioner No.5 6 ½ decimals of Sale deed no.14737 dated
land 17.12.2004
Petitioner of 29.41 decimals of Sale deed no.3664 dated 13.03.2006
(W.P.(C) No. land of plot no.111 (Annexure - A to the counter
220 of 2017) affidavit dated 31.01.2017 filed on
behalf of respondent no.5)
27. It is the case of the petitioners that they have purchased land under
Khata no.116, plot no.111 of village Gutuwa vide registered sale deed
bearing nos.3667, 3665, 3666, 3663 dated 13.03.2006 from Sanjhari
Kunwar and subsequently the petitioner no.5 namely Pradeep Kumar had
purchased the land of Chandrasheela Kumari, who in turn had purchased
the land from Sanjhari Kunwar. They all claimed that their names have
been mutated and they are in possession of the property and have been
paying rent and a few rent receipts have been annexed and they claim that
they have purchased the land with building and have remained in
continuous possession.
28. It is the case of the petitioners that as back as in the year 1985-86,
Bhaglu Oraon had instituted SAR Case No.14 of 1985-86 against Hridya
Nand Singh for restoration of land of 0.82 acres under Section 71A of
Chota Nagpur Act, which was allowed on 23.09.1986 but the order of
restoration could not be effected because the land was in possession of
Jhanjhari Kunwar @ Sanjhari Kunwar as Birendra Prasad Singh and
Hridya Nand Singh had earlier transferred the land to Jhanjhari Kunwar
@ Sanjhari Kunwar vide registered sale deed no.5761 dated 26.08.1963
and consequently the SAR Case which was filed against Hridya Nand
Singh for restoration of land as SAR Case No.14 of 1985 - 86 was filed
against wrong person. Consequently, the order of restoration dated
23.09.1986 could not be given effect to. However, Bhaglu Oroan after
2025:JHHC:20479
expiry of 13 years filed another case being SAR Case No.3 of 1999 and
the said case was dismissed.
29. In the meantime, and prior to filing of SAR Case No.3 of 1999,
Bhaglu Oroan sold the property to one Arjun Munda (husband of the
applicant) vide registered sale deed no.5751 dated 26.04.1990 after
obtaining permission from the Deputy Commissioner. It has been stated
by the petitioners that the permission was obtained to sell the land after
supressing the material facts that the land which belonged to "Oraon" was
sought to be transferred to person of another caste namely "Munda".
Thereafter, Arjun Munda after expiry of 17 to 18 years from the date of
purchase, filed two separate proceedings under Section 71A of CNT Act
seeking restoration of the land on the strength of the registered sale deed
no.5751 dated 26.04.1990 which was treated as SAR Case No.482 of
2007-08 and 499 of 2008-09. It has also been pointed out by the
petitioners in the writ petition that in the meantime, the government had
also acquired portion of the land and house vide land Acquisition Case
No.33 of 2005 and in the year 2008-09, award was also prepared and
compensation thereto was also paid in favour of the petitioners. A copy of
the order passed in LA Case No.33 of 2005 has been annexed as
Annexure - 6 to the writ petition. However, SAR Case No.482 of 2007-08
which is subject matter of consideration in W.P.(C). No.124 of 2017 and
W.P. (C) No. 220 of 2017 was allowed vide order dated 04.06.2012 which
is Annexure - 7 to the writ petition.
30. The perusal of order dated 04.06.2012 reveals that the petition was
filed by Arjun Munda in connection with Khata No.116 plot no.111 area
4.20 acres against Chandrashila Kumari, Pradeep Kumar Lal, Babita
Singh and Shanti Singh. The SAR Officer observed that the property was
recorded in the name of Madi Oraon, son of Bhaglu Oroan and also
recorded that khatiyani raiyat obtained permission under Section 46 of the
CNT Act and sold the property being Khata No.116, plot no.111 area 82
decimals, plot no.785 area 73 decimals, plot no.807 area 56 decimals, plot
2025:JHHC:20479
no.822 area 17 decimals, plot no.833 area 86 decimals total 3.14 acres
through registered sale deed to Arjun Munda and observed that the
property was the raiyati property of Arjun Munda, who was in possession
of the property. It was also observed that the petitioners have forcefully
dispossessed Arjun Munda of his raiyati property and therefore Arjun
Munda had filed the petition for restoration of possession. While referring
to the show cause filed by the petitioners, SAR Officer observed that the
suit property was obtained by Birendra Prasad Singh and Hridya Nand
Singh through compromise in Title Suit No.273 of 1963 with respect to 82
decimals of property and also referred to the aforesaid sale deeds which
were filed by the petitioners and also that the property was mutated in
their name. The point of limitation was also raised by the petitioners. It
was also recorded that the original applicant Arjun Munda had expired on
10.04.2010 and consequently in his name, his wife and children were
made party.
31. The SAR officer heard both the parties and observed that the
compromise decree has no legal sanctity which cannot be recognized
under Section 71A of CNT Act and the manner in which the petitioners
had obtained possession was in violation of Section 48 of CNT Act. The
authority also rejected that the purchaser of the property namely Arjun
Munda could not have filed a petition under Section 71A of CNT Act by
observing that due permission was granted under Section 46 of the CNT
Act for sale of property and ultimately passed an order of restoration in
favour of the applicants.
32. The perusal of the order dated 04.06.2012 reveals that although the
point of limitation was raised but the authority has not considered the
point of limitation/delay and laches at all. The authority had also not
considered that the suit was filed by Birendra Prasad Singh and Hridya
Nand Singh seeking declaration of the title, but it was this suit which
entered into compromise and thereafter there has been numerous sale
deeds with respect to the property involved in this case. The reply filed by
2025:JHHC:20479
the petitioners before the learned SAR Officer reveal that the following 3
(three) points of law were raised by the petitioners before the SAR Officer
and the judgments were also referred to but none of those points were
considered or even recorded in the order passed by the learned SAR
Officer.
"A. Present Restoration Application has been filed after the
lapse of about 50 years which is hopelessly barred by the law
of limitation perfecting the title of the opposite parties
adversely to the recorded tenant and the persons claiming
through or under him (vide the photo copy of the judgment of
the Hon'ble High Court, Jharkhand reported in JCR 2009
P.343).
B. The applicant is not the original recorded tenant and he is
purchaser (transferee) of the lands in dispute and as per
decision reported in JCR 2010, P. 427 the benefit of 71-A of
the C.N.T. Act, 1908 cannot be provided to the applicant who
has recourse, if any, before the Civil Court of Competent
Jurisdiction.
C. The applicant and the transferer U/s 46 of the C.N.T. Act
1908 are residing under two police stations separately. The
land and the transferer is situated and resident at Ratu P.S.
(as then) Now Nagri P.S. Ranchi whereas the applicant is
resident of Sarna Toli, Hatma village within Lalpur P.S.
Ranchi."
33. The application filed for restoration of land by Arjun Munda reveals
that he has neither given any date of dispossession nor given any mode of
dispossession or manner of dispossession and with respect to the structure
over the land, he had mentioned that there was a partly constructed
building on the property. With respect to the affidavit annexed with the
application, he mentioned that he has acquired the land by virtue of
registered sale deed dated 19.05.1990 executed by Bhaglu Oroan, son of
Bhada Oraon and the land has fraudulently in contravention of Section 46
2025:JHHC:20479
of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act been taken by the opposite party and he
has also mentioned that he had not filed any SAR case earlier.
34. The petitioners being aggrieved by the order passed by the SAR
Officer filed appeal which was numbered as SAR Appeal No.111
R15/2012-13. The perusal of the appellate order reveals that on the day
when the case was taken up, the appellants did not turn up for hearing and
it has been recorded that sufficient opportunity was given to them for
hearing and ultimately the case was heard in absence of the appellants. In
the absence of the petitioners, the learned appellate court, only recorded
the submission of the respondent (applicant here-the wife of the original
applicant Arjun Munda) and the appeal was dismissed on merits without
even recording the case of the appellants, who are the petitioners before
this Court.
35. The matter was taken up in revision by the petitioners which was
numbered as S.A.R Revision No.2 of 2015 and S.A.R Revision No. 3 of
2015 wherein numerous grounds were taken. It was also raised that the
Applicant had claimed that Bhaglu Oraon had instituted S.A.R Case
No.14 of 1985-86 for restoration of 82 decimals of plot no.111 in which
the order of restoration was passed on 23.09.1986 and it was claimed by
the applicant that delivery of possession was effected by the Circle
Officer, Ranchi in favour of Bhaglu Oraon and then the Applicant Arjun
Munda purchased the land from Bhaglu Oroan by virtue of registered sale
deed no.5751 dated 26.04.1990. These facts were disputed by the
petitioners before the revisional authority by raising number of points and
it was also alleged that the order of the SAR Officer was obtained by
supressing materials facts. It was also asserted that the petitioners were in
possession of the property over the land since more than 50 years i.e.
since 1946 and neither the applicant nor their predecessor in interest were
in possession of the land since much before enactment and enforcement of
Bihar Schedule Area Regulation Act, 1969 whereby new Section 71-A
was instituted in the CNT Act. Reference was also made to the
2025:JHHC:20479
judgements passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the application for
restoration of land after passing of reasonable period was itself not
maintainable. The impugned order passed by the revisional authority i.e.
the learned Commissioner, recorded the submissions of the parties and
jumped at the finding without dealing with the specific points raised by
the parties particularly the arguments of the petitioners and recorded that
the compromise decree in Title Suit No.273 of 1963 was collusive. It is
important to note that the compromise in the suit was between the father
of the vendor of Applicant, namely, Bhuglu Oraon and the predecessor in
interest of the petitioners and dismissed the revision applications. The
finding of the Commissioner is quoted as under: -
"On going through arguments of both the parties and on
perusal of record, it appears that, the respondent claim the
land on the basis of transfer made through collusive
decree and since, any transfer made on the basis of
collusive decree attracts Section 71A of the CNT Act and
no permission under the provisions of CNT Act has been
obtained by the predecessor in interest of the present
petitioner, hence I find that, the predecessor in interest
have fraudulently acquired the land in question in
contravention of the provisions of CNT Act and the land in
question was rightly restored in favour of the respondents
by the learned courts below.
Hence for the reasons aforementioned, this appeal is
dismissed and impugned order passed by the learned
courts below are hereby upheld and the land is ordered to
be restored in favour of the respondent."
36. This Court finds that numerous points were argued before the
learned revisional court, but none of the points were taken into
consideration by the revisional authority, and therefore, the impugned
order passed by the learned Commissioner is non-speaking and suffers
from non-consideration of many legal and factual points, which were
raised by the petitioners before the authority. The Commissioner has also
not taken into consideration the various judgements relied upon by the
parties.
2025:JHHC:20479
37. It is important to note that no record of dakhal-dehani undertaken
by the Circle Officer in execution of the order of S.A.R. Officer passed in
earlier S.A.R. case has been placed on record and thus the date of
possession of Arjun Munda or date of possession of his predecessor in
interest has not been placed on record and it was the case of the petitioners
that original applicant -Arjun Munda and/or their predecessor and were
never put in possession. There is serious dispute as to whether original
applicant -Arjun Munda and /or his predecessor in interest was ever put in
possession of the property. Objections have also been raised as to how the
property belonging to Oraon tribe could be transferred to a person
belonging to Munda tribe that too to a person belonging to a different
police station. It is important to note that the date of
possession/dispossession and also the mode of possession/dispossession
have important bearing in the matter. In this connection, the previous
orders passed in SAR cases for restoration of the land involved in this
case filed by the vendor of applicant Arjun Munda and/or predecessor in
interest of the vendor against or in favour of the petitioners/predecessor in
interest of the petitioners and also the execution of such orders, if any, are
also required to be considered. Although in the initial application as
perused by this Court and also by the learned counsel for the parties, no
specific statement has been made by Arjun Munda regarding the date and
manner of dispossession but before the authorities much was argued by
both the parties, but no clear finding has been recorded with regards to the
date and manner of possession/dispossession of Arjun Munda from the
disputed property. The records received from the office of the
Commissioner reveals that the records which have been submitted before
this Court by the respondent State were not produced for perusal and
consideration as a result of which the Commissioner in the impugned
order has straight away reached at the conclusion after recording the
arguments of the respective parties without deliberating upon the points
raised by the parties and without considering the judgements relied upon
2025:JHHC:20479
by them in the revision petition and also during the course of arguments.
The impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner is non speaking
on many aspects of the matter, both factual and legal which has seriously
prejudiced the cause of justice and hence the impugned order calls for
interference.
38. In W.P. (C) No. 220 of 2017, it has come to light that the writ
petitioner has transferred her property through registered sale deed to third
party and since the law is well settled that any person cannot pass on
better title than what he has and any transfer made during the pendency of
a case is governed by the principles of lis pendens and the vendor
certainly has a right to continue with the litigation. This Court is of the
considered view that merely because the writ petitioner of W.P. (C) No.
220 of 2017 did not disclose about the transfer of property, the same
cannot be a reason to dismiss the writ petition particularly when the order
of restoration of land was passed against the writ petitioner.
39. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order passed in
SAR Revision No.2 of 2015 and SAR Revision No.3 of 2015 dated
14.12.2016 passed by the Revisional Authority (Commissioner, South
Chotanagpur Division) is set aside.
40. The matter is remanded back to the learned Commissioner for fresh
consideration and passing of fresh order in accordance with law after
giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/respondents/applicant and
upon considering the materials on record which have been placed before
this Court by the respondent and further material, if any, as may be
available with the respondent authorities with respect to the property
involved in this case. If one or the other party files any application for
calling for one or the other records relating to the property involved in this
case, appropriate order be passed depending upon the relevance of such
record. Considering the nature of the dispute involved in this case, the
parties may also seek liberty to file written submissions before the learned
2025:JHHC:20479
Commissioner, so that all matters of fact and law are duly addressed while
passing the fresh order.
41. Let the records submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent
be handed over back to the learned counsel and the concerned authority
shall place the records before the learned Commissioner for consideration.
42. The parties to appear before the learned Commissioner on
08.09.2025 at 11.00 am and fresh reasoned order after due opportunity of
hearing and in the light of the discussions made above be passed within a
period of 6 months from the date of appearance.
43. The parties to maintain status-quo with respect to the property till
08.09.2025.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav/
