Jharkhand High Court
Jag Narayan Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 May, 2025
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
2025:JHHC:14133
2017:JHHC:28472
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 4889 of 2003
Jag Narayan Singh, son of Late Sarju Prasad Singh, resident of Kathar
Gonda, Tikti Tola, P.S. Gonda, District Ranchi
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Commissioner South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
4. Special Officer, Ranchi
5. Jagarnath Munda, son of late Jagdeo Munda @ Hussani Munda,
resident of village Kathar Gonda, Tikri Tola, P.S. Gonda (Kanke)
P.O. Kanke District Ranchi ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Kr. Chakraverty, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Kunal Chandra Suman, AC to GPII
For the Respondent No.5 : None
---
22/09.05.2025 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
"That the instant writ application is for issuance of an
appropriate writ, order or direction from this Hon'ble
Court for quashing the order dated 5.5.2003 passed by
the respondent no.2 in Ranchi S.A.R. Revision No.73 of
2002 contained in Annexure - 4 affirming the order
dated 3.6.2002 passed by the respondent no.3 in Case
No.175 R15/97-98 contained in Annexure - 3 and the
order dated 26.8.97 contained in Annexure - 2 passed
by the respondent no.4 in S.A.R. Case No.222/90-91
passed by the respondent no.4 restoring the land in
question under section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy
Act in favour of the respondent no.5."
Argument of the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per
Second proviso of Section 71A of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (
hereinafter referred to as CNT Act) where a substantial structure or
building on holding is available prior to coming into force of Bihar
Schedule Area Regulation 1969, it is open to the Deputy
Commissioner to validate such transfer where the transferee either
2025:JHHC:14133
2017:JHHC:28472
makes available to the transferor an alternative holding or portion
thereof, as the case may be, of the equivalent value, of the vicinity or
pays adequate compensation to be determined by the Deputy
Commissioner for rehabilitation of the transferor.
4. The learned counsel has submitted that the order passed by the
Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation under Section 71 A of
CNT Act itself reflected that the property was already converted into
chaparbandi and the chaparbandi rent was being paid. The learned
counsel has submitted that the appellate authority as well as the
revisional authority have wrongly observed that no conclusive
document was produced to show that the property was chaparbandi.
5. The learned counsel has referred to the counter affidavit filed
by the respondent no.5 and referred to paragraph 3 thereof wherein he
has given the entire history of the land and has also annexed a copy of
rent receipt dated 10.04.1953 showing that the amount of rent was
fixed for the land as chaparbandi land. The learned counsel has also
submitted that the private respondent no.5 has stated in paragraph 5 of
the counter affidavit that he will be satisfied if adequate compensation
is given to him under second proviso of Section 71 A of CNT Act.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the
order dated 24.01.2025 wherein at paragraph 3, it has been recorded as
under:
"A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
private respondent no.5 which is on record stating that the
land was mentioned as chaparbandi land and the rent
receipt dated 10.04.1953 also shows that the amount of rent
was fixed for the said land as chapparbandi. The document
has also been annexed along with the counter affidavit."
7. The learned counsel submits that vide order dated 24.01.2025
passed in this writ petition the learned counsel for the State was
directed to seek instruction and file a response to the said counter
affidavit filed by respondent no.5 and the counter affidavit was
directed to be sworn by the concerned SAR Officer. The learned
2025:JHHC:14133
2017:JHHC:28472
counsel has also submitted that a supplementary counter affidavit has
been filed vide affidavit dated 30.04.2025 but the SAR Officer has not
controverted the statements and the document filed by respondent
no.5.
8. The learned counsel submits that as per the records, the fact is
that the property became chaparbandi as back as in the year 1953 and
rent receipt was also issued and this fact was also noticed by the SAR
Officer while passing the order but not considered. This submission
was also recorded by the SAR Officer while passing the order but still
it was recorded that the property was transferred in 1974 without
taking permission from the Deputy Commissioner.
9. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is ready to
give compensation in terms of the second proviso to Section 71 A of
the CNT Act as has also been asserted by the private respondent no.5 .
He has relied upon a judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C)
No.2019 of 2004 (Brahmdeo Sharma and Ors. Vs. The State of
Jharkhand and Ors.) and has referred to paragraph 21 thereof
wherein the orders were set aside with the direction to the petitioners
of the said case to make payment of compensation to the private
respondent on the basis of the rate which was prevalent as on
01.04.2001. He submits that although the transfer was made way back
but the petitioner is ready to pay compensation as on 01.04.2001.
Arguments of the respondent State.
10. The learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that
the first transfer had taken place in the year 1948 without any
permission from the Deputy Commissioner and has submitted that it
could not be proved by the petitioner before the authorities that the
property was converted into chaparbandi. He has submitted that it has
been stated in the counter affidavit that so far as conversion of raiyati
land to chaparbandi is concerned, the petitioner did not file any
document in support of this contention and even did not disclose the
date on which such conversion was made which was the observation
made by the learned Commissioner, South Chota Nagpur Division
while dismissing the revision vide order dated 05.05.2003.
2025:JHHC:14133
2017:JHHC:28472
11. Nobody is appearing on behalf of the respondent no.5.
Although a counter affidavit as stated above is on record. Since
nobody was appearing on earlier occasion also, this Court vide order
dated 24.01.2025 had issued notice to the respondent no.5 through the
concerned police station and the officer in charge of the concerned
police station and the service report by the police has been placed on
record. This Court finds that in spite of the service of notice through
the concerned police station, the respondent no.5 has not appeared
before this Court to make any further submission and what is available
on record is the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.5.
Findings of this court.
12. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State
and after going through the materials placed on record including the
counter affidavit filed by the Respondent no.5 , this Court finds the
land involved in this case was purchased by the vendor of the
petitioner through registered sale deed in the year 1948 being
registered sale deed No. 3808 dated 28.05.1948. The petitioner
claimed to have purchased a house over the land measuring an area of
5 kathas out of 55 decimals under khata no.82 plot no.632 thana
no.201 in village Kathar Gonda, district Ranchi in the name of his
wife vide registered sale deed no.17158 dated 28.11.1974 from one
Hussainee Munda, son of Tunwa Munda of village Kathargonda,
Ranchi and stated that it was chaparbandi in nature. After purchase,
the property was also mutated in the name of the petitioner and
correction slip was also issued. The rent receipt and the correction slip
in the mutation case no.733R-27/81-82 dated 16.11.81 are placed on
record. The petitioner claims to have further constructed a substantial
structure on the land.
13. However, the respondent no.5 filed an application under
Section 71 A of CNT Act which was numbered as SAR Case No.222
of 1991 seeking restoration of the land by stating that he was the legal
heir of the recorded tenant and the land in question was purchased on
15.06.1948 by Hussainee Munda with permission of the Deputy
Commissioner.
2025:JHHC:14133
2017:JHHC:28472
14. The SAR Officer after granting opportunity of hearing to the
parties passed an order dated 26.08.1997 directing restoration of land.
However, the order of the SAR Officer reveals that the zamindari
chapparbandi receipt no. 105754 - 2496 was also placed on record by
the petitioner and it was submitted that the property was converted
into chaparbandi and chaparbandi rent was being paid but the said
document was not considered by the SAR Officer while passing the
order of return of the land by holding that at the time of transfer in the
year 1974 permission under section 46 of the CNT Act was not taken.
The appellate court as well as the revisional court observed that no
prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner was taken and the
petitioner had failed to prove conclusive evidence of document issued
by competent authority for conversion into chaparbandi land. The
appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have held that
the first transfer of the land took place in the year 1948 and the same
was without permission of the Deputy Commissioner without taking
note of the fact that it was the father of the applicant seeking
restoration of land who had filed petition under section 71A of C.N.T
who had purchased the property through registered sale deed in the
year 1948 and in a way the authorities question the sale deed which
was the basis of the claim of the applicant.
15. This Court further finds that the said document, that is, the
zamindari chapparbandi receipt no. 105754 - 2496 was recorded to
have been produced but was not considered by the SAR Officer or the
appellate and revisional authorities. This Court also finds that the
same document has also been placed on record by private respondent
no.5 by filing a counter affidavit but the document has not been
controverted by the respondent state in spite of having granted
opportunity to respond to the counter affidavit filed by respondent
no.5.
16. The uncontroverted stand of the respondent no.5 in the counter
affidavit is in paragraph 3 to 5 which is quoted as under: -
"3. That with reference to the statements made in para 5 of
the petition, the respondent no.5 states that his father
2025:JHHC:14133
2017:JHHC:28472
purchased 55 decimals of the land under Khata No.82 plot
no.632 of village Kathan Gonda, District Ranchi in 1948.
After purchase the father of the respondent no.5 Hussani
Munda constructed a house over the lands in question. In the
long use of the land as Chapparbandi by constructing the
house, the land has become Chapparbandi. The Rent receipt
issued by the then Jamindar (the Chotanagpur Raj) the land
was mentioned as "Chapparbandi". The rent receipt dated
10.4.1953 also shows the amount of rent was fixed for the said
land as Chapparbandi land.
4. That the present petitioner has purchased 5 khatha of the
said land with the house standing on it in 1974 by a registered
Sale deed dated 28.11.74. The petitioner has constructed
pucca building on the said land renovating the original house.
5. That the respondent no.5 states that there is substantial
structure on the land and he is out of possession of the land in
question since 1974 as such the respondent no.5 will be
satisfied if adequate compensation is given to him under
Second Proviso to the section 71A of the Chotanagpur
Tenancy Act."
17. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, this Court is
of the view that chaparbandi rent receipt dated 10.04.1953 was already
issued and thus chaparbandi was already created over the property
prior to coming into force of Bihar Schedule Area Regulation 1 of
1969, and consequently, the petitioner is entitled to same relief as was
granted by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2019 of 2004. The private
respondent no.5 has also expressed his desire to accept the
compensation as may be fixed. The learned counsel for the petitioner
has agreed to pay compensation in terms of the rate which was
prevalent as on 01.04.2001.
18. Accordingly, the order dated 26.08.1997 passed by the Special
Officer, S.A.R. Ranchi the Respondent No. 4 in S.A.R. Case No.
222/90-91 (Annexure-2), the order dated 03.06.2002 passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, the Respondent No. 3 in Case No. 175
2025:JHHC:14133
2017:JHHC:28472
R 15 of 97-98 (Annexure-3) and the order dated 05.05.2003 passed by
the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi the
Respondent No.2 in S.A.R. Revision No. 73 of 2002 (Annexure-4) are
hereby quashed and set aside with a direction upon the petitioner to
make payment of compensation to the private respondent no.5 herein
on the basis of government rate of the property which was prevalent as
on 1.4.2001 as may be assessed by the Special Officer, S.A.R, Ranchi.
19. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Special Officer,
S.A.R, Ranchi on 24.06.2025 at 11.00 a.m.
20. The Special Officer, S.A.R, Ranchi is directed to quantify the
amount of compensation payable within a period of 3 months
thereafter and the petitioner shall deposit the compensation amount
before the Special Officer, S.A.R, Ranchi, within a period of 15 days
from the date of order to be passed.
21. The Special Officer, S.A.R, Ranchi shall communicate a copy
of the order to the petitioner through E-mail /phone, the details of
which be furnished by the petitioner on the date of appearance on
24.06.2025.
22. The Special Officer, S.A.R, Ranchi shall also ensure payment
of the compensation to the private respondent no.5 herein on proper
identification.
23. This writ petition is disposed of.
24. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands closed.
25. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the private
respondent no.5 through speed post.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
