Jharkhand High Court
Deena Nath Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 14 July, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:19167
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (C) No. 1449 of 2011
Deena Nath Prasad, S/o Late Chani Prasad, R/o Ambedkar Nagar,
Pandra (Near Sanjay Gandhi Memorial College), Pandra, PO- Kamre,
PS- Sukhdeo Nagar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
.... .. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Region, Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.
4. Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi.
5. Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi.
6. Kolha Oraon, S/o Late Baha Oraon, R/o Village- Nawa Toli, Pandra,
PO- Hehal, PS Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi.
7. Bhola Oraon, S/o Late Baha Oraon, R/o Village- Nawa Toli, Pandra,
PO- Hehal, PS Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi.
8(a) Raju Oraon, S/o Late Karia Oraon, R/o Village- Nawa Toli, Pandra,
PO- Hehal, PS Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi
. .. ... ...Respondent(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
.........
For the Petitioner (s) : M/s Manoj Tandon,
Shivani Bhardwaj, Neha Bhardwaj
Akansha Priya, Advocates
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, SC.I
Mr. Mihir Kunal Ekka, AC to SC.I
......
10/ 14.07.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed against the order dated
09.03.2010 passed by Respondent No.2 in S.A.R. Revision Case
No.91 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the order of restoration
passed in SAR Case No.334 of 2005-06 and in Restoration Appeal
Case No.21R-15/09-10 has been affirmed.
2. As per the case of the petitioner, the land, in question, measuring
an area of 3.5 Kattha under Khata No.21 and Plot No.252, Mouza-
Pandra was transferred by Karia Oraon in favour of Ram Nandan
Paswan by unregistered sale deed executed on 21.05.1963. After
the said purchase, the petitioner came in physical possession of the
said land and in the year, 1979, the said Ram Nandan Pawan
transferred the land by way of unregistered gift to his wife and
thereafter his wife transferred it to her daughter by way of
unregistered gift and the property was succeeded by one Kiran
Kumari being daughter of Saraswati Devi.
2025:JHHC:19167
3. Petitioner is husband of said Kiran Kumari.
4. The impugned order has been assailed mainly on the ground that
the transfer of possession took place way- back in the year 1963,
whereas the restoration case was filed in the year, 2005-06 after
more than 40 years ago which is not within the reasonable time as
per the ratio laid down in catena of judgment passed by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Situ Sahu and Ors. vs. State of
Jharkhand and Ors. (2004) 5 SCC 340 and Jai Mangal Oraon vs.
Mira Nayak (2000) 5 SCC 141 as well as in the case of Anupama
Roy vs. State of Bihar and Ors. [2003 SCC OnLine Jhar 380].
5. However, learned court below without examining this aspect of the
matter has passed the order of restoration.
6. Learned SC.I for the State while opposing the prayer has submitted
that the transfers were done in violation of Section 46 of the C.N.T.
It is further argued that transfer of land is in violation of the
provisions of the Indian Registration Act, and Transfer of Property
Act, as the claim is founded on an unregistered sale deed, in which
valuation of Rs 91 has been given only to circumvent the rigors of
law.
7. It is further submitted that there is no documentary proof to
substantiate the case of the petitioner that he came into physical
possession after the said transfer, petitioner did not produce any
document before the SAR Court or its appellate authority.
8. Respondent Nos.6 to 8(a) had appeared through a counsel after
issuance of notice. On repeated calls, nobody has appeared on
behalf of them today.
9. Petitioner is facing concurrent orders of restoration passed by
competent Court in SAR Case, which was affirmed in appeal and
revision.
10. While explaining the writ jurisdiction Hon'ble Supreme Court held
in Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah, Bhurey Lal 1955 SCC
OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1955 SC 425 :
14. That, however, is not to say that the jurisdiction will be exercised
whenever there is an error of law. The High Courts do not, and should not,
act as courts of appeal under Article 226. Their powers are purely
discretionary and though no limits can be placed upon that discretion it
must be exercised along recognised lines and not arbitrarily; and one of
2025:JHHC:19167
the limitations imposed by the Courts on themselves is that they will not
exercise jurisdiction in this class of case unless substantial injustice has
ensued, or is likely to ensue. They will not allow themselves to be turned
into courts of appeal or revision to set right mere errors of law which do
not occasion injustice in a broad and general sense, for, though no
legislature can impose limitations on these constitutional powers it is a
sound exercise of discretion to bear in mind the policy of the legislature to
have disputes about these special rights decided as speedily as may be.
11. In the present Case the claim of the petitioner is based on an
unregistered deed of sale which is indisputably in violation of Section
46 of the CNT Act. The plea of limitation also does not inspire any
confidence, as the transfer deed is unregistered and therefore its
antiquity cannot be determined. There is no other document to suggest
that the said deed was ever acted upon.
Writ petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed
with cost. Cost assessed to be ₹ 5000 to be paid to Respondent
Nos.6, 7 and 8(a).
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Sandeep/
