Click the Play button to listen to article

The Jharkhand High Court has held that a transfer of land governed by the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 cannot be sustained merely on the basis of a compromise decree where such transfer is in violation of the statutory provisions. The Court observed that “transfer by any fraudulent method including decrees obtained in a suit by fraud and collusion cannot be allowed to be continued.”

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a writ petition challenging the order dated 29.06.2006 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dalbhum, Jamshedpur in Land Restoration Case No. 78 of 2002-03, whereby an application under Section 71(A) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act seeking restoration of possession in favour of respondent no. 5 was allowed.

The petitioners had also challenged the order dated 29.10.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in S.A.R. Appeal No. 142 of 2010-11 and the order dated 22.04.2014 passed by the revisional authority in S.A.R. Revision Case No. 4 of 2012-13. The petitioners claimed possession over the lands situated at Mauza Deoghar, Revenue Thana No. 1147, District East Singhbhum, and contended that they had been in peaceful physical possession of the land since 1967. It was submitted that Title Suit No. 791 of 1967 had ended in compromise, following which the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur mutated the name of petitioner no. 1 and accepted rent in respect of the land.

The petitioners contended that since they had been in possession since 1967, the restoration proceedings initiated after 35 years were barred by limitation. It was also argued that the land had been converted into Chapparbandi land after construction of a house. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the authorities had failed to consider the limitation aspect, as the petitioners had been in possession of the land since 1967 on the basis of the compromise decree in Title Suit No. 791 of 1967.

It was argued that a restoration case filed after 30 years of possession was barred by time. It was further submitted that respondent no. 5, being only the widow of late Jyotish Singh Munda, could not have filed the restoration case as her sons had not initiated such proceedings.

Opposing the petition, counsel for the State submitted that the authorities had rightly considered the circumstances relating to the title suit and the compromise decree. It was argued that the compromise decree itself was dehors the provisions of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908.

The Court noted that the petitioners claimed possession pursuant to Title Suit No. 791 of 1967, which had ended in a compromise. It observed that although the decree was of 1968, the mutation case was instituted only in 1999 and rent receipts from 2000 and 2003-04 had been filed. The Court observed that this indicated that mutation was not allowed earlier and that at a particular point of time the mutation petition was filed, which was allowed in favour of the petitioners on the basis of the title suit and compromise decree. It held that if there was no callousness, a petition under Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act would be barred by time if filed after 30 years of possession, as held in Situ Sahu v. State of Jharkhand

However, the Court held that the compromise decree relied upon by the petitioners could not be accepted as the basis of possession, as the transfer claimed through the decree was in violation of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. The Court considered Patna High Court's judgment in Bina Rani Ghosh v. Commissioner, South Chota Nagpur Division, reported in 1988 Supreme (Pat.) 195, and observed:

“In the light of discussions of the Full Bench Judgment in the aforesaid case, it is crystal clear that transfer by any fraudulent method including decrees obtained in a suit by fraud and collusion cannot be allowed to be continued.”

The Court further referred to Section 46(3) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and observed that any deed in violation of Section 46(1) of the Act would not be recognised as valid by any Court, whether civil, criminal or revenue. The Court observed that collusive transactions, even by way of registered deeds, could not be treated as valid in light of the statutory provisions of the Act.

The Court rejected the petitioners' contention regarding the compromise decree and held that the possession claimed on the basis of such decree could not be accepted as the transfer was in violation of the Act. The Court further rejected the contention regarding conversion of the land into Chapparbandi land, observing that the land was not originally Chapparbandi land and that construction was made only after the collusive decree.

The Court also held that respondent no. 5, being the widow of late Jyotish Singh Munda, had the right to file the restoration case as she was the first legal heir and successor of late Jyotish Singh Munda.

Finding no illegality in the impugned orders, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Ananta Gour @ Anant Kumar Pradhan and Anr v. State of Jharkhand and Ors

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 3852 of 2014

Appearance:

For the Petitioner: Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate; Mr. Ganesh Ram, Advocate.

For the State: Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate; Mrs. Shalini Sahdeo, Advocate.

For Respondent No. 5: Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate; Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate.

Click Here To Read/Download Order



Tags: