Jharkhand High Court
Lattu Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 May, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
2025:JHHC:13977-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 571 of 2019
----
1. Lattu Mahto, aged about 66 years.
2. Paltu Mahto, aged about 70 years
Both sons of Late Hitlal Mahto, resident of
Village: Kaitha, P.O.: Kaitha, P.S.: Ramgarh,
District: Ramgarh.
...........Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2.The Commissioner, North Chhotanagpupr Division,
Hazaribag, P.O. + P.S.+District: Hazaribag
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S.+District:
Ramgarh.
4. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ramgarh, P.O. +P.S. +
District: Ramgarh.
5. The Circle Officer, Ramgarh, P.O. + P.S. + District:
Ramgarh.
6. Ramjatan Munda, Son of Late Barhan Munda, Resident of
Village: Ramgarh (Kunwar Tola), P.Ο. + P.S. + District:
Ramgarh. ..........Respondents
----
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
----
For the Appellants : Mr. Aditya Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
: Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, G.A.-IV
----
Reserved on 07/04/2025 Pronounced on 09 /05/2025
Per Deepak Roshan, J.
This Intra Court Appeal is directed against the
judgment passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2276 of
2017, whereby the prayer of the petitioners-appellants has been
dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants had preferred the
writ application for the following reliefs:
"i.) For quashing of the order dated 16.02.2017
(Annexure 12), passed by the Learned Commissioner,
North Chhotanagpur Division Hazaribagh
(Respondent No.2), in Land Restoration Revision
No.62/2013, whereby & where under the revision
preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and
the order dated 02.08.2013, passed by the learned
2025:JHHC:13977-DB
Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh (Respondent No.3), in
S.A.R. Appeal No.22/2013 and order dated
21.06.2013, passed by the learned Land Reforms
Deputy Collector, Ramgarh, S.A.R Case No. 14/2012-
13 were upheld:
ii.) For quashing of the order dated 02.08.2013
(Annexure-09), passed by the Learned Deputy
Commissioner, Ramgarh, in restoration Appeal Case
No.22/2013, whereby and where under the appeal
preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed in
cryptic manner, without considering the facts &
circumstances of the case:
iii.) For quashing of the order dated 21.06.2013
(Annexure-07), passed by the learned Land Reforms
Deputy Collector, Ramgarh in Land Restoration Case
No.14/2012-13, whereby & where under the land of
the petitioners situated in Mouja Kaitha, Thana No.85,
P.S.: Ramgarh, Khata No.19, Plot No.773, Area 1 acre
restored in favour of Ramjatan Munda (Respondent
No.5), U/s 46 & 4A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act,
without considering the show-cause filed by the
petitioners and on erroneous consideration saying
that the order passed in Title Suit by the Civil Court
having no value i.e., the erroneous consideration of
the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, which is not
tenable in the eye of law:"
3. To decide the issue involved in this appeal, some facts
are necessary to be referred:
The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings of the
appellants made in the writ petition is that the landed property
in pertaining to Plot No.773, measuring an area of 2.22 acres
under Khata No. 19, Village-Kaitha, Police Station and Thana-
Ramgarh was recorded in the names of Jaylal Munda & Ghujja
Munda and both are sons of Bhukhlal Munda during the last
survey & settlement operation.
The said Ghujija Munda approached Hitlal Mahto for
some money and for that in order to create security, a piece of
land comprising an area of 1.00 acres towards East of Plot
No.773 under Khata No.19 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Suit
Land') as has been indicted in the Title Suit No.926 of 1964 has
been given in possession of the appellants, in consequence
thereupon, a title suit was filed being Title Suit No. 926 of 1964
2025:JHHC:13977-DB
by the recorded tenant on 30.11.1964 for seeking the relief of
declaration of right over the suit land, the defendants/the
appellants herein be evicted from the suit land. The said title suit
has culminated into a compromise decree vide decree signed on
27.01.1965
Thereafter, the said Hitlal Mahto applied for mutation
before the revenue authority which was registered as Mutation
Case No.321 of 1965-66 which was allowed and accordingly the
name of the appellants has been entered in the rent register i.e.,
Register-II of Ramgarh Anchal, District Hazaribagh (now,
District-Ramgarh) and since then the appellants are making
payment of rent in token thereof and the rent receipts are being
issued.
After lapse of substantial period, an application was
filed by the respondent No.6 on 23.08.2012 under the provision
of Section 46 (4-A) of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 which was registered
as Land Restoration Case No.14 of 2012-13. The Deputy
Collector Land Reforms had issued notice upon the appellants,
who on its service, appeared and filed reply rebutting the claim
of the respondent No.6 inter alia on the ground that the
restoration application has been filed beyond the period of
limitation and the possession has been confirmed by way of
decree passed in the Suit No.926 of 1964. However, the original
authority has passed order of restoration, against which, the
appellants have filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner
which has also been dismissed and thereafter, the appellants
have filed revision before the Commissioner North Chhotanagpur
Division, Hazaribagh which was also dismissed; against which,
the writ petition was preferred by the appellants and the same
has also been dismissed by the learned Writ Court.
4. Thus, we see that all the Authorities have dismissed
the claim of the appellants and confirmed the order of
restoration. Before the Writ Court, the appellants had taken a
specific ground with regard to limitation for filing restoration.
2025:JHHC:13977-DB
Learned counsel for the appellants has also relied
heavily on the decree based on compromise and submits that
pursuant to a Joint Compromise Decree the appellants came in
possession and the application filed by the respondent no. 6
under Section 71A was highly time barred.
5. However, when we peruse the provisions of
Chottanagpur Tenancy Act 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CNT
Act'), there is complete embargo of transfer of land under the
provisions of the Act and since the transfer is said to have been
made in between Tribal and Non-Tribal; therefore, there cannot
be any transfer as per the provisions made under Section 46 of
the Act.
Though, the question of limitation has been agitated
by the appellants; however, from the impugned orders passed by
all the Authorities, there is a concurrent finding that the
document upon which the appellants had given much reliance
i.e., decree passed in compromise by the competent court of civil
jurisdiction, has been disbelieved by all the authorities on the
ground that the decree in a case pertaining to illegal transfer of
land in between Tribal and Non-Tribal which is the subject
matter of C.N.T Act is nothing else, but a fraud upon the statute.
From the record, it also appears that the Authorities
have come to a conclusive finding that save and except the
document pertaining to the title suit, no other evidence has been
produced by the appellants showing the date of coming in
possession of the land in question and thus, the issue of
limitation will not arise.
6. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that
C.N.T Act has been enacted in order to look into the interest of
the people residing in the scheduled and non-scheduled areas.
The provisions of the Act clearly provide that there is restriction
on transfer of the rights by the Raiyats. There can be transfer of
land but it can only be in between the tribal people falling within
the same police station and that too with the permission of
2025:JHHC:13977-DB
Deputy Commissioner; but there cannot be any transfer from
tribal to non-tribal.
7. The ground of limitation for filing application under
Section 71A raised by the appellants was well considered by the
learned Writ Court and there is a categorical finding that the
application was not time barred. Moreover, the appellants are
taking the ground of compromise decree to show the date of
dispossession, but the issue of decree passed by the competent
court fell for consideration before this Court in several cases and
this Court has come to a conclusive finding with respect to a
decree passed in a suit on compromise under the CNT will be
treated to be fraud upon the Statute.
A reference in this regard may be made to the
judgment rendered in the case of Ram Ratan Singh Vs State of
Bihar & Ors.1 wherein this Court had held that if any title is
being claimed by way of compromise decree passed in title suit,
the same will be nullity in the eye of law in view of the complete
embargo of transfer of land from tribal to non-tribal as per the
provisions of Section 46 of C.N.T Act.
8. Now the law is well settled that the intent and scope of
the Act which restrains the transfer of land from tribal to non-
tribal and if it would be allowed to be transferred by virtue of a
suit and decree on compromise, the same would be nothing but
an overreaching instrument to frustrate the very object of the
Act.
As aforesaid, the appellants, who are claiming
possession on the basis of compromise decree, we cannot accept
the same since the very document itself is not legal and valid as
because the decree on a compromise has been held to be fraud
upon the Statute and when there is an intent of fraud no
reliance can be placed on the said document since fraud vitiates
everything. In this regard reliance is placed upon decision of
(2009) 2 AIR Jhar R 777
2025:JHHC:13977-DB
Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in State of A.P. v. T.
Suryachandra Rao2. The relevant paragraphs are quoted
herein below:
"8. By "fraud" is meant an intention to deceive; whether it is from
any expectation of advantage to the party himself or from ill-will
towards the other is immaterial. The expression "fraud" involves
two elements, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is
something other than economic loss, that is, deprivation of
property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it will
include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind,
reputation or such others. In short, it is a non-economic or non-
pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver, will almost
always cause loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare
cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no
corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is
satisfied. "
" 10. "Fraud" as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud
and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by
letter or words, which includes the other person or authority to
take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct
of the former either by words or letter..."
Emphasis Supplied
9. So far as issue of limitation is concerned, learned
Single Judge has categorically held in Para-10 of its order that
the period of limitation would be counted from the year 2008
since once the appellants have been said to be dispossessed, the
earlier possession as has been claimed has lost its force and the
same would be said to be superseded from the subsequent
dispossession and therefore the learned Writ Court has counted
the limitation from 2008 and since the application for restoration
under Section 71A was filed on August, 2012, it has been held
by learned writ court that the same was within limitation.
We don't find any error in this finding in the
background of the facts and circumstances of the case. Even
otherwise, as stated hereinabove, the appellants who are
claiming the possession on the basis of a compromise decree
cannot be accepted; inasmuch, the same is against the intent of
CNT Act.
(2005) 6 SCC 149
2025:JHHC:13977-DB
10. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, we hold that there is no error
committed by learned Single Judge in dismissing the claim of the
appellants. At the cost of repetition, all the Revenue Authorities
have given a concurrent finding with regard to commission of
fraud by the appellants in view of compromise decree;
accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. However, there
shall be no order to costs.
(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
Jk
N.A.F.R
