Chotanagpur Tenancy Act | Restoration Proceedings Must Be Initiated Within Reasonable Time; Final Orders Cannot Be Reopened: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court has held that although Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act does not prescribe a limitation period, restoration proceedings must nevertheless be initiated within a reasonable time. The Court also held that once an order passed in a restoration proceeding has attained finality, it cannot be reopened in subsequent proceedings.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a writ petition challenging orders passed by the Additional Collector and the Divisional Commissioner, Ranchi, which had reopened an earlier restoration proceeding and set aside an order passed in 1988.

The petitioner's case was that his father had purchased the disputed 1.32 acres of land for valuable consideration in 1947 and remained in peaceful possession thereafter. Although the vendor had assured that permission from the competent authority would be obtained, such permission was never secured. When the original owners later interfered with possession, the petitioner's father instituted a title suit, which was decreed on compromise in 1965.

The petitioner submitted that in 1986-87, the respondent's father initiated restoration proceedings under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. Those proceedings culminated in an order dated 26 August 1988 directing the petitioner to transfer an equivalent extent of land in the same village to the respondent's father. The petitioner complied with the order by executing a registered deed on 21 September 1988, and mutation was also effected in favour of the respondent's father. It was argued that since the 1988 order had never been challenged, it had attained finality and could not subsequently be reopened.

The State defended the appellate and revisional orders, submitting that the appellate authority had found that there was no structure standing on the disputed land and had therefore rightly interfered with the earlier order.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decisions in Situ Sahu v. State of Jharkhand and Fulchand Munda v. State of Bihar, the High Court observed that while Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act does not prescribe any limitation period, restoration proceedings must nevertheless be initiated within a reasonable period, and a delay of around 30 years has been recognised as the outer limit of what may be considered reasonable. The Court further noted that the principles of res judicata also apply to such proceedings.

Applying these principles, the Court found that both the appellate authority and the revisional authority had failed to assign any cogent reason for holding that the principles of res judicata were inapplicable despite the earlier restoration proceedings having concluded in 1988 and the consequential transfer having already been implemented.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the orders passed by the Additional Collector in SAR Appeal No. 53R 15/07-08 and by the Divisional Commissioner in SAR Revision No. 108 of 2008. It held that the order dated 26 August 1988 in SAR Case No. 10/86-87 had attained finality and continued to govern the rights of the parties. The writ petition was consequently allowed.

Case Title: Amar Kumar Choudhary v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 2621 of 2009

Appearance: Mr. Ram Prakash Singh and Mr. Pradeep Kumar for the Petitioner. Mr. Ajit Kumar and Mr. Sanjeev Thakur for the Respondents.

Click Here To Read/Download Order