Poonam Srivastav, J.@mdashHeard Shri V. Shivnath, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate, on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. V.K. Prasad, Standing Counsel (Land & Ceiling) on behalf of the respondents.
2. The instant writ petition is preferred challenging the order passed by Respondent No. 2the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi dated 11.12.2001 in Ranchi S.A.R. Appeal No. 2 of 2001 confirming the order dated 20.10.2000 passed by Respondent No. 3Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Appeal No. 56 R 15 of 199798 upholding the order dated 19.07.1997 passed by Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi in S.A.R. Case No. 109 of 199293 restoring the land of the petitioner in favour of the respondent.
3. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the land of Khata No. 99 plot No. 1029 having an area of 1.14 acres situated in Village Hesal, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, District Ranchi, was initially recorded in the name of Sanicharwa and Mangra Oraon S/o Tota Oraon, and Modi Oraon S/o Tupru Oraon as occupancy raiyat. The aforesaid land was converted into Chhaparbandi by the landlord on a petition by the owner Bigal Oraon and others on 15.05.1953. This land was sold to one Sheo Prasad Sahu by a registered sale deed on 30.10.1959 by Bigal Oraon, Ram Oraon and Sukru Oraon. The aforesaid Sheo Prasad Sahu sold the land to three persons by means of a registered sale deed. The petitioner purchased an area of 9 Kathas, vide sale deed No. 29951 on 28.04.1960. The remaining 2/3rd portion of plot No. 1029 was sold to two different persons. Proceedings u/s 71A of the C.N.T. Act was instituted, vide S.A.R. Case No. 108 of 199293 and S.A.R. Case No. 110 of 199293 before the Special Officer, Ranchi by Respondent No. 5, against Shri Laxman Prasad and Shri R.N. Verma separately. These restoration proceedings were commenced in respect of certain portion of plot No. 1029, the land belonging to the petitioner is also part of the same plot. It was contended that the opposite parties by issue of Sada Hukumnama by the then lordlord of the Village Hesal, converted the land into Chhaparbandi and was settled in favour of Bigal Oraon, Chama Oraon sons of Charwa Oraon and Most. Chakro Oraon, widow of Kali Oraon, Charwa Oraon in the year 1953 (15.05.1953). At the time of transfer of the land in favour of Sheo Prasad Sahu by registered deed of sale dated 30.10.1959, the land was shown as ''Chhaparbandi''. The sale deed is annexed along with the supplementary affidavit as Annexure6 to the writ petition to substantiate this contention.
4. Learned counsel has also placed a copy of the original sale deed which is part of the lower court records to demonstrate that the sale deed clearly mentions that the land was converted into Chhaparbandi, vide a deed dated 15.05.1953. The two S.A.R. Case Nos. 108 of 199293 and 110 of 199293 were dismissed on the ground that plot No. 1029 of Khata No. 99 is now Chhaparbandi and, therefore, the Special Officer, vide order dated 13.05.1996 was of the view that the provisions of C.N.T. Act is not applicable. Learned counsel submits that orders in the two S.A.R. Cases were brought on record in the court of Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in S.A.R. Revision No. 2 of 2001.
5. Learned counsel further submits in paragraph4 of her supplementary affidavit that in Mutation Case No. 12 of 197778, the order of Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Anchal Karmachari, submitted his report on 02.05.1977 after verification of the document of Sada Hukumnama dated 13.05.1953, that the petitioner was in possession of the land in question which was a Chhaparbandi land. The report in Register II of the land in plot No. 1029 at page224, shows the name of Sheo Prasad Sahu as Chhaparbandi tenant. The mutation was allowed on 30.05.1977. The petitioner has annexed a photo/true copy of the entire ordersheet of Mutation Case No. 12 of 197778 as Annexure9.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the restoration u/s 71A of the C.N.T. Act was illegally allowed. The appeal preferred at the behest of the petitioner was dismissed and the revisional court rejected the revision in a summary manner without even taking into consideration the two orders in S.A.R. Case Nos. 108 of 199293 and 110 of 199293. It is also argued that the order in the aforesaid S.A.R. Cases were not challenged and has attained finality, besides, the restoration was filed after a lapse of considerable length of period, admittedly, beyond the period of 3035 years and, therefore, the petitioner''s right stood perfected and the courts below have illegally rejected the claim of the petitioner. The restoration, though not maintainable is hopelessly barred by period of limitation.
7. Learned Standing Counsel has vehemently argued the aforesaid submissions and submits that the land in question belongs to tribals and is not transferable and, therefore, transfer, if any, stands vitiated in law. There is nothing on record to show that the land was converted into Chhaparbandi. Mere assertion in the sale deed will not suffice and thus, the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the three authorities below.
8. Reliance has been placed on a division bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Arjun Das, 2004 (4) JCR 535 (Jha).
9. The learned Standing Counsel emphasised that Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act prohibits any transfer of land belonging to the Scheduled Tribes in favour of the nontribal. Acquisition of title in favour of nontribal by invoking the doctrine of adverse possession over the immovable property belonging to tribal is also prohibited by law and, therefore, cannot be countenance by court.
10. After hearing the respective counsel at length and perusal of the lower court records, it is evident that the sale deed executed in favour of Sheo Prasad Sahu by Bigal Oraon, Ram Oraon and Sukru Oraon on 30.10.1959 mentions the deed dated 15.05.1953 by virtue of which the land was converted into Chhaparbandi. It is also clear on perusal of the lower court records that the orders in the two S.A.R. Cases 108 of 1992 and 110 of 1992 was also brought on record, but apparently, it has not been taken into consideration by any of the courts below.
11. Grievance on behalf of the petitioner that the questions raised were not considered on merit as well as the documents brought on record were completely ignored, is evidently an error apparent on the face of the record and liable to be quashed in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. The record clearly substantiates the argument of the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and, therefore, the three orders impugned in the instant writ petition passed by Respondent No. 2the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi dated 11.12.2001 in Ranchi S.A.R. Appeal No. 2 of 2001 and the order dated 20.10.2000 passed by Respondent No. 3Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Appeal No. 56 R 15 of 199798 as well as the order dated 19.07.1997 passed by Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi in S.A.R. Case No. 109 of 199293 are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded at the appeal stage before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, to decide the appeal afresh, after taking into consideration the documentary evidence and its necessary implications to the facts of the present case.
13. I refrain to give my opinion on merit so that the appellate court may examine the respective claims on the basis of the record as well as the previous decisions without being prejudiced by any observation herein above.
14. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is allowed and the petitioner as well as the contesting respondents shall file a certified copy of this order before the appellate authority within three weeks from today.
15. Office is directed to remand the record before the Deputy Collector, Ranchi for reconsideration of the entire matter which shall be decided expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date the record is received by him. The order shall be passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the respective parties and also permitting them to bring on record any other evidence which they desire so that justice may be done in accordance with law.
