Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act | Pre-1947 Transfers Not Hit By Section 46; 45-Year Delay Bars Restoration: Jharkhand High Court

The Jharkhand High Court set aside the orders allowing restoration of land under the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, holding that (i) Section 46 is inapplicable to transfers made prior to its introduction in 1947, (ii) a restoration application filed after 45 years is barred under Section 71, and (iii) title established through a registered patta, civil court decree, and final record-of-rights cannot be disturbed in belated proceedings.

A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi was hearing a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the order dated 22.11.1994 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum in S.A.R Appeal No.28 of 1986-87, which affirmed the order dated 06.06.1986 of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector allowing a restoration application under Section 71 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act.

The Petitioners contended that the land was settled in favour of their predecessor through a registered patta in 1939-40 after ejectment of the original tenure-holder for rent default. They argued that their title and possession were confirmed by a civil court decree in 1952, which attained finality, and further reflected in the finally published record-of-rights. It was submitted that the restoration application filed in 1985 (after about 45 years) was not maintainable under Section 71, and that Section 46 of the CNT Act was inapplicable to pre-1947 transfers.

The State and private respondents argued that the earlier proceedings were vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 46 of the CNT Act, as the Deputy Commissioner was not made a party. They further contended that the documents relied upon by the petitioners were doubtful and that the authorities had rightly allowed restoration.

The Court first examined the nature of the petitioners' title and found that it was supported by three consistent sources: the registered patta of 1939–40, the civil court decree of 1952 confirming title and possession, and the final record-of-rights published in 1964. The Court noted that these documents were not challenged by the respondents at any stage and therefore had attained finality. It emphasised that once a civil court decree and revenue records recognise a person's title, such rights cannot be lightly disturbed in subsequent proceedings.

The Court then addressed the applicability of Section 46 of the CNT Act. It held that since the patta was executed in 1939 and registered in 1940, the requirement of prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner (introduced only in 1947) could not apply. Therefore, the very basis on which the authorities had interfered with the petitioners' title was legally incorrect.

The Court also rejected the respondents' allegation that the transaction was fraudulent, observing that no convincing material had been placed on record to dislodge the petitioners' title. It further noted that even allegations of fraud cannot justify reopening transactions after such an inordinate delay.

In light of these findings, the Court concluded that the authorities below had failed to consider the legal position regarding applicability of Section 46, the effect of delay under Section 71, and the binding nature of earlier civil and revenue records. Accordingly, the orders dated 22.11.1994 and 06.06.1986 were set aside.

Title: Parimal Kumar Mahato and Ors v. State of Jharkhand and Ors

Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 129 of 2009

Appearance: Ms Amrita Sinha, Mrs. Shweta Suman and Ms. Pragunee Kashyap appeared for the Petitioners. Mr. Prashant Kr. Rai and Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay appeared for the Respondents

Click Here To Read/Download Order