A) Parimal Kumar Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand
2026 Latest Caselaw 2077 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

A) Parimal Kumar Mahato vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 March, 2026

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                                                2026:JHHC:7423

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                       ----

W.P.(C) No. 129 of 2009

----

1A) Parimal Kumar Mahato, son of Upendra Nath Mahato 1B) Rasik Lal Mahato, son of Upendra Nath Mahato 1C)Utpal Kumar Mahato, son of Upendra Nath Mahato All residents of Village Post Kantaboni, Kantabani, Chakulia, District -East Singhbhum- 832 301

2.Sarvendu Mahato, son of late Nagendera Mahto, resident of Village Katabani, via Dhalbhum Ghar, P.O. Katabani, P.S. Chakuliya, District Singhbhum (East) .... Petitioners

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand, through the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur

2.Land Reform Deputy Commissioner, Ghatshila, Singhbhum East 3A)Somai Murmu, son of Salkhan Murmu 3B)Ram Murmu, son of Salkhan Murmu 3C)Lakhan Murmu, son of Salkhan Murmu, All residents of Village Kanimohali, P.O. Nuta Nagar, Thana Dhalbhum Nagar, District East Singhbhum -832302 ........ Respondents

4.Lokesh Mahto, son of late Hare Krishna Mahto, resident of Village Katabani, via Dhalbhum Ghar, PO Katabani PS Chakuliya, District Singhbhum (East)

5.Bhuneshwar Mahto, son of late Nagendra Mahto, resident of Village Katabani, via Dhalbhum Ghar, PO Katabani PS Chakuliya, District Singhbhum (East)

6.Kamlendu Mahto, son of late Nagendra Mahto, resident of Village Katabani, via Dhalbhum Ghar, PO Katabani PS Chakuliya, District Singhbhum (East)

7.Amlendu Mahto, son of late Nagendra Mahto, resident of Village Katabani, via Dhalbhum Ghar, PO Katabani PS Chakuliya, District Singhbhum (East)

8.Nirmalendu Mahto, son of late Nagendra Mahto, resident of Village Katabani, via Dhalbhum Ghar, PO Katabani PS Chakuliya, District Singhbhum (East)

9.Niharaindu Mahto, son of late Nagendra Mahto, resident of

Village Katabani, via Dhalbhum Ghar, PO Katabani PS Chakuliya, District Singhbhum (East) ........Respondent Nos.4 to 9 as Proforma Respondents

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

----

          For the Petitioner(s) :-    Ms Amrita Sinha, Advocate
                                      Mrs.Shweta Suman, Advocate
                                      Ms. Pragunee Kashyap, Advocate
          For the State         :-    Mr. Prashant Kr. Rai, Advocate
          For the Respondents :-      Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate
                                      ----
18/18.03.2026              Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the private respondents.

2. It has been pointed out that so far as the respondent

nos.4 to 9 are concerned, they are the proforma respondents and

they are supporting the case of the petitioners.

3. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India praying therein for quashing of the order dated

22.11.1994 (Annexure-2) passed by the learned Deputy

Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in S.A.R Appeal No.28

of 1986-87 whereby the said authority has been pleased to dismiss

the appeals filed by the late father of the petitioners namely, Hare

Krishna Mahto and Nagendra Mahto respectively under the provision

of section 215 of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and affirmed the

order dated 06.06.1986 passed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy

Collector, Ghatshila in R.P. Case No.68 of 1985-86 whereby the

petition filed under section 71 of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act has

been allowed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector,

Ghatshila.

4. Ms. Amrita Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioners submits that Kanu Santhal @ Kanu Murmu

was the father of the respondent no.3 and for the tenure holder

(Pradhan) of the Mouza Kani Mahali and his tenure/interest was

recorded in revisional survey of 1937 in khewat No.2 under Jagdish

Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb Zamindar of Dhalbhum Estate whose interest

was recorded in khewat No.1 of the said village. She submits that the

land in question formed part of the Khem land of Kunu Kanthal and he

was holding the same for rendering service as Pradhan (Tenure holder)

to the Zamindar of Dhalbhum Estate and he was entitled to retain the

land and his khem land as long as he would be Pradhan of the village.

The land was recorded in khata no.33 of mouza Kani Mahli and he was

liable to pay rent for his tenure interest to the proprietor of Dhalbhum

Estate and according to terms of Pradhani tenure, if at any time the

Pradhan ceased to the Pradhan in that case, he will be evicted form

this khem land. She further submits that kunu Santhal defaulted in

making payment of the rent for the aforesaid tenure. The proprietor of

Dhalbhum Estate filed a suit in the court of the Rent Suit Deputy

Collector, Jamshedpur for ejectment of the Pradhan, Kunu Santhal

from the Pradhani Tenure. The suit was registered as Rent Suit

No.43/1937-38 and was decreed on 14.03.1938 and thereafter the

proprietor obtained delivery of possession of the entire land of village

Kani Mahali including the land in question recorded in Revisional

Survey Khata No.33 on 16.01.1939 in Execution Case No.1312/1938-

39 in the court of the Rent Suit Deputy Collector, Jamshedpur,

Dhalbhum. She further submits that said land came through the

process of the court to the Zamindar and he was in Khas possession of

the said land and while in such possession of the land by a registered

patta dated 31.12.1939 he settled the same in raiyati right to the

grandfather of the petitioner. The total area settled with Gurucharan

Mahto grandfather of the petitioners was 15.95 acre description of

which have been given in the said patta and thereafter the possession

of the property was delivered to the grandfather of the petitioners who

was in possession of the same on payment of rent to the proprietor of

the Dhalbhum Estate. She next submits that the photocopy of the rent

receipt issued by the Dhalbhum Estate to the for grandfather of the

petitioners are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-1 Series

forming part of the petition. She next submits that one Jit Rai Santhal

and others have trespassed upon the land which were settled with

Gurucharan Mahto for which Gurucharan Mahto filed a Title Suit being

Title Suit No.25 of 1950 for declaration of title and confirmation of

possession over the lands trespassed upon by the said Jitrai Santhal

and others and recovery of possession of the same. The suit was

decided by the Additional Munsif at Jamshedpur and the judgment was

delivered on 24.4.1952 and recovery of possession of the land was

taken by the grandfather of the petitioners on 20.07.1952 in execution

case no.46 of 1952. She further submits that the property in question

R.S. Plot No. 65 having an area of 0.24 acres was sold by the

grandfather of petitioners to one Sashadhar Shit by registered sale

deed dated 29.06.1954 and the same has been recorded in his name

in R.S. Settlement. She next submits that respondent also filed an

application for restoration of C.S. Plot No.65 against Purusottam Shit

which was registered as R.P. Case No. 69/85-86. The L.R.D.C. Ghatsila,

has been pleased to dismiss the same by order dated 06.06.1986.

5. On this background, she further submits that the

grandfather of the petitioners have got Patta from the ex-landlord and

he had raiyati right over the property and the aforesaid judgment

passed by competent civil court has attained finality and that judgment

and decree were not challenged by the respondents herein. She next

submits that the father of the respondent no.3 has filed the restoration

case in the year 1985-86 vide R.P. Case No. 68 of 1985-86 in which the

grandfather of the petitioners has appeared and contested the

proceeding and brought all relevant records with regard to the

settlement by the Zamindar as well as the judgment of the Title Suit

even then the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ghatshila has

allowed the restoration case vide order dated 06.06.1986. She next

submits that the same was allowed only on the ground that it was not

maintainable saying that the compliance of section 46 of Chhotanagpur

Tenancy Act, 1908 has not been made. She next submits that against

the said order the father of the petitioners has filed appeal under

section 215 of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act before the respondent no.1

and the same was instituted as S.A.R. Appeal No.28 of 1986-87 and

same was contested throughout by the father of the petitioners. She

further submits that father of the petitioner no.1 has died and the

father of the petitioner no.2 has also died and in view of that the

petitioners were not knowing about the said S.A.R Appeal and they

have came to know about the said Appeal later on and after obtaining

the entire order sheets and the documents the present petition has

been filed. By referring paragraph 19 of the writ petition he further

submits that entire record of R.P.Case No.68 of 1985-86 was sent to

the learned court of appeal and it was sent by the Memo No.1097 on

26.10.1999 and the record is not traceable. She submits that reply to

paragraph no.19 is not made by the learned counsel for the

respondent State on affidavit. She further submits that in the year

1939 itself the land was transferred in favour of the forefathers of the

petitioners. She further submits that section 46 of Chhotanagpur

Tenancy Act came in existence in the year 1947 and in view of that the

said sections is not attracted so far as the case in hand is concerned.

She further submits that in light of section 83(2) of Chhotanagpur

Tenancy Act, the name of the forefathers of the petitioner has already

been recorded. She further submits that the settlement Patta was

registered on 27.2.1940 contained in Annexure-5 of the supplementary

affidavit filed by the petitioner and thereafter the forefather of the

petitioners had started making regular payment of the rent to the

proprietor of Dhalbhum Estate. She next submits that in light of

section 83(2) of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, the certificate of final

publication was signed on 28.8.1964 which is in favour of Guru Charan

Mahato being the forefather of the petitioners. She submits that the

respondent no.3 has not challenged the Khatiyan being the records of

rights finally framed and published under section 83(2) of the

Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. She further submits that the settlement

Patta and Khatiyan established the fact that the name of the forefather

of the petitioners namely Guru Charan Mahto has been entered in the

record of rights after the recent survey of the year 1962. She next

submits that the Patta was executed in the year 1939 which was

registered in the year 1940, however, section 71 of the Chhotanagpur

Tenancy Act application has been filed in the year 1985, that is, after

45 years. She next submits that in light of Section 71 of the

Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act if any right is accrued it was required to file

within a year. She submits that so far as the section 46 of the

Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act is concerned, that was considered by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jai Mangal Oraon v. Smt. Mira Nayak

and Others reported in AIR 2000 (SC) 2276 and submits that it has

been held that at the time of dispute with regard to that case, Section

46 of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act was not introduced and the same will

not be attracted and the relevant paragraph of the said judgment is

quoted below:

"A perusal of the decision reported in 1992 suppl (2) SCC 77 (supra) would show that it did not deal with a case of surrender prior to 1947, as in this case and during the relevant point of time when surrender was made in this case there was no statutory provision in the CNT Act which

envisaged the obtaining of prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner before surrender of the tenancy rights.

Though no factual details are available in the judgment this is obvious from the fact that what was considered therein was only the scope of Section 71A added by the Amendment in the year 1969. So far as the decision reported in 1996 (9) SCC 545 (supra) is concerned also the date of surrender in that case is not stated specifically. Even otherwise, in para 9 of the judgment it is stated, thus- In this case an application under Section 46 (4) (a) has been made. It is, therefore, not at all necessary whether Section 71A incorporated by amendment is applicable in respect of the land in question. Section 46 (4) (a) considered in this decision which envisaged a prior sanction of the Deputy Commissioner before effecting transfer in any of the modes stated therein was introduced only in the year 1947 with effect from 5.1.1948 and no such provision existed during the relevant point of time of surrender made in this case on 15.1.1942. For all these reasons, we are of the view that the two decisions relied upon for the appellant does not either apply to the present cases or support the contentions raised before us.

No doubt, the understanding of the High Court about the scope of Section 71A as interpreted by the earlier decisions of that Court noticed therein may not be good or correct in view of the later declaration of law by this Court but, the High Court did not proceed to rest its conclusion to uphold the claims of the contesting respondents who were writ petitioners before the High Court, only on that ground. The High Court has considered, at length, the further question as to whether Section 71A, introduced in 1969, was attracted to this case of surrender effected by a registered deed, on 15.1.1942, in the light of the then existing statutory provisions contained in Section 46 and 72 of the CNT Act. The nature of consideration and the other reasons assigned in support of the order made in CWJC No.118 of 1986 (R) makes it clear that the statutory provisions as they

stood in force on 15.1.1942 neither envisaged the obtaining of a prior sanction of the Deputy Commissioner before a surrender by a tenant could be made of his interest in favour of the landlord nor could such surrender be held bad merely because it was not at the end of the Agricultural Year but immediately before. Those issues seem to have been considered and decided, even dehors the controversy raised with reference to the character of the land, proceeding on an assumption of the basis that it involved a surrender of raiyati interest. We find nothing illegal or wrong in the said reasoning and the conclusions arrived at by the learned Judges in the High Court appear to be well merited and quite accordance with the statutory provisions in force, at the relevant point. Therefore, in our view, no interference is called for with the orders of the High Court, in this regard."

6. She further submits that the judgment and decree

passed in Title Suit no.25 of 1950 has attained finality and the

question of this document relied by the petitioners has not been

raised. She also submits that even if the contention of the

respondent no.3 is accepted that the documents were fraudulent,

that will also not help the respondent no.3 in light of the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Situ Sahu and Others

v. The State of Jharkhand and Others reported in AIR 2004

SC 4918, relevant paragraph of which is given below:

"We will assume that the surrender of tenancy on

7.2.1938 and the settlement of the lands on the present appellant on 25.2.1938 were in quick succession and could be viewed as parts of the same transaction within the meaning of the term 'transfer' as contemplated by the Act. Nonetheless, it has not been established before us that the transfer was contrary to any other provisions of the Act. We

shall now examine the last argument of Shri Narasimha that the transfer was fraudulent. Even on this, we are afraid that the appellants are entitled to succeed. We need not go into the details of the transaction for we may even assume that the transfer was fraudulent. Even then, as held in Ibrahimpatnam (supra), the power under Section 71A could have been exercised only within a reasonable time. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, we are not satisfied that the Special officer exercised his powers under Section 71A within a reasonable period of time. The lapse of 40 years is certainly not a reasonable time for exercise of power, even if it is not hedged in by a period of limitation. We derive support to our view from the observations made by this Court in Jai Mangal Oraon case (supra) which was also a case which arose under the very same provision of law. There this Court took the view that Section 46(4)(a), which envisaged a prior sanction of the Deputy Commissioner before effecting the transfer in any of the modes stated therein, was introduced only in the year 1947 (with effect from 5.1.1948) and no such provision existed during the relevant point of time when the surrender was made in that case (15.1.1942). Obviously, therefore, no such provision existed in 1938, and the same reasoning applies."

7. On these grounds, she submits that the impugned order

may kindly be set aside.

8. Lastly, she submits that still the petitioners are in

possession of the land in question.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent

State submits that in the suit preferred by the forefather of the

petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner was not made party and that

is violation of Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act.

10. Mr. Upadhyay, the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the respondent no.3 submits that the document relied by the

petitioners herein are doubtful and in view of that both the learned

authorities have rightly passed the orders. He also submits that the

contention has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners

that the Patta was executed in the year 1939 wherein the registered

Patta was made in the year 1940. According to him, there is no

illegality in the orders of both the learned authorities.

11. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel

for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record

including the impugned orders.

12. It is an admitted position that in light of the Patta the

land in question was settled in the year 1939 by the then proprietor

of Dhalbhum Estate which was registered in the year 1940 in the

name of forefather of the petitioners. When the trace-passers have

entered into the land of the petitioners, the forefather of the

petitioners have instituted the Title Suit no.25 of 1950 which was

decreed by the judgment dated 24.04.1952 and the recovery of

possession was provided to the forefather of the petitioners in

Execution Case No.46 of 1952. This judgment and decree have

attained finality as neither the State nor the respondent no.3 has

challenged the same in the higher Courts. The provisions have been

made for publication of records of rights under Section 83 of the

Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. Section 83(1), 83(2) and 83(3) of

Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act are quoted hereunder:

"83. Preliminary publication, amendment and final publication of record-of-rights.-(1) When a draft record-of-

rights has been prepared under this Chapter, the Revenue Officer shall publish the draft in the prescribed manner and for the prescribed period and shall receive and consider any objections which may be made to any entry therein, or to any omissions therefrom, during the period of publication. (2) When such objections have been considered and disposed of in the prescribed manner, the Revenue Officer shall finally frame the record, and shall cause it to be finally published in the prescribed manner, and the publication shall be conclusive evidence that the record has been duly made under this Chapter. (3) Separate draft or final records may be published under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) for different local areas, estates, tenures or parts thereof."

13. In light of the above Sub Section (2) of Section 83 of

Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, the provision is made for final

publication of records of rights and that will be the conclusive

evidence that the record has been duly made under that Chapter

and the rights of records has been brought on record by the

petitioners by way of filing supplementary affidavit as contained in

Annexure-6 in which it has been clearly recorded by the competent

authority that the records of rights finally sent and published under

section 83 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act on 24.08.1964 and the

certificate of final publication was signed on 28.08.1964 and in the

said final publication the name of Guru Charan Mahato is recorded

who is said to be forefather of the petitioners. In the Khewala Deed

No.428 dated 27.02.1940 which was the registered Patta, the

descriptions and how the proprietor of the Dhalbhum Estate came

into the possession has been depicted and by the said Patta the

forefather of the petitioners was put in possession of the land in

question. Thus, these documents clearly established the right, title

and interest of the petitioners which has not been demolished by

way of bringing any relevant documents either by the learned

counsel for the respondent State or by the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3.

14. Section 71 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908,

clearly describes that if any ejection is there, within one year one is

required to approach the learned Deputy Commissioner and in the

case in hand, after 45 years the said application under section 71 of

the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act has been filed.

15. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent

no.3 with regard to fraudulent document is not being accepted by

the Court in view of the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Situ Sahu and Others v. State of

Jharkhand and Others (supra).

16. Admittedly, the land in question was in favour of the

petitioners through the Patta of the year 1939 registered in the year

1940 and in view of that Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy

Act is not attracted in light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Jai Mangal Oraon and Others v. Smt.

Meera Nayak and Others (supra) as Section 46 of the

Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act came into force in the year 1947.

17. In view of above reasons and analysis the Court finds

that the learned courts have erred in passing the judgment under

the appeal by way of affirming the order dated 06.06.1986 passed

by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ghatshila in R.P.Case

No.68 of 1985-86, and as such, the order dated 22.11.1994 passed

by the learned Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur

in S.A.R Appeal No.28 of 1986-87, is hereby, set-aside. The order

dated 06.06.1986 passed by learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector,

Ghatshila is also merged in the order dated 22.11.1994 as it has

been pointed out that the records of the said case has been

misplaced which has not been replied by the learned counsel for the

respondent State.

18. In view of setting aside the order dated 22.11.1994,

order dated 06.06.1986 will also not come in the way in light of

principle of merger.

19. This writ petition being W.P.(C)No.129 of 2009 is allowed

in the above terms, and stands disposed of.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Dated : 18th March, 2026 SI/ A.F.R.