Vinod Kr. Prajapati & Others vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 707 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Vinod Kr. Prajapati & Others vs The State Of Jharkhand & Others on 4 February, 2026

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                       W.P. (C). No.1131 of 2005

   Vinod Kr. Prajapati & Others                     ...     ...      Petitioners
                               Versus
   The State of Jharkhand & Others                  ...     ...     Respondents

                         ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioners : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant kr. Rai, Advocate

---

th 29/4 February 2026

1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. The core issue involved in the present case is as to whether the proceeding under Section 71-A of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act was maintainable or the remedy under Section 49(5) of the CNT Act was available to the concerned tribal .

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the land was transferred after taking due permission under Section 49 of the CNT Act and the permission was granted with the condition that one Unit was to be set up which would also generate employment. He submits that under Section 49(5) of the CNT Act, there is a specific provision that if the permission is obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, appropriate steps can be taken to annul the permission itself.

4. The learned counsel submits that pursuant to the permission, the sale deed was executed and the original raiyat had filed a petition under Section 71-A of the CNT Act which was not maintainable. He has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court reported in [1990 BLT (Rep. 352)] in the case of Sri Rajendra Nath Kapoor vs. State of Bihar & Others which has also been followed in the judgment reported in [2001 (2) Jhr CR 127 (Jhr.).

5. The learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer and has submitted that fraud has been committed upon the authority who has granted the permission as well as upon the raiyat and therefore the petition under Section 71-A was maintainable.

6. Learned counsel for the parties are directed to prepare short notes.

7. Post this case for further argument tomorrow i.e. 5th February 2026.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul/-