Jharkhand High Court
Anuranjan Toppo Son Of Late Ignatias ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 February, 2018
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 5747 of 2007
...
Anuranjan Toppo son of late Ignatias Toppo, resident of Kumhartoli-1, Purulia Road, Ranchi, P.O. Lalpur, P.s.- Lower Bazar, Dist. Ranchi. Jharkhand ... Petitioner Versus.
1. The State of Jharkhand, through Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.
2. The Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi.
3. The Additional Collector, Ranchi.
4. The Special Officer, S.A.R., Ranchi.
5. Shri Ravikant Bhalla (wife of late B.R. Bhalla)
6. Shri Kamal Kumar Jain s/o Motilal Jain.
7. Smt. Manjula Jain w/o Shri Kamal Kumar Jain All resident of Purulia Road Ranchi, P.O. Lalpur, P.s.- Lower Bazar, Dist.
Ranchi (Jharkhand). ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Swapan Maji, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Rahul Gupta (For respondents 6 & 7) For the State : Mr. Sahil, J.C. to S.C.(L&C)
-----
Order No. 06 : Dated 20th February, 2018
1. Heard Mr. Swapan Maji, counsel for the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Rahul Gupta, counsel appears for the private respondents
3. Heard Mr. Sahil, A.C. to S.C. (L&C) appearing for the respondent no. 1 to 4.
4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:
a. For quashing the order dated 26.05.2001 passed by Special officer, Ranchi in S.A.R. Case No. 106/2000-2001 as contained in Annexure-1.
b. For quashing the order dated 20.12.2003, Passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in S.A.R. Appeal no. 52-R-15/2001- 02/A.C.T.R. 20-R-15/03-04 as contained in Annexure-2 . c. For quashing the order dated 9.7.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Ranchi in S.A.R. Revision Case No. 012/2004 as contained in Annexure-3.
5. Counsel for the petitioner submits as follows:
i) The property involved in this case is situated at Mouza Konka Thana No. 198, Khata No. 34 and 135, R.S. Plot No. 269A, 269B and 271A situated in the district of Ranchi.
ii) The property involved in this case are in two sets.
One relates to plot no. 269 , khata no. 34 area 20 decimals of land which was transferred vide register deed no. 5106 2 dated 24.08.1961 for which permission was granted by the Deputy Commissioner vide permission case no. 27-R- 8(ii)/1960-61.
The other property is relating to R.S. Plot No. 271A in Khata No. 135 comprising of land measuring 1.23 acres which was transferred vide a compromise decree passed as back as in the year 14.12.1966 in the title suit no. 136 of 1966.
iii) Counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as part of the property for which the permission was granted by the Deputy Commissioner for transfer of land is concerned ,the permission was not properly granted and accordingly the application for restoration filed under section 71A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 ought to have been allowed by the respondent authorities below. He further submits that so far as compromise decree in title suit is concerned relating to the other part of the property involved in this case, it was a compromise tainted with fraud and accordingly, the same cannot be acknowledged.
iv) Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has been dispossessed partly by virtue of the aforesaid registered deed no. 5106 dated 24.08.1961 and partly on the date of aforesaid compromise decree dated 14.12.1966 passed in Title Suit no 136 of 1966.
v) Counsel for the petitioner submits that application for restoration of land was filed in the year 2000 bearing S.A.R. Case No. 106/2000-2001 which was dismissed vide order dated 26.05.2001 on the ground of limitation.
vi) Counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner has lost before all the three authorities but the transfer of land by way of registered deed dated 24.08.1961 is not proper as the same was transferred by virtue of illegal permission and also the dispossession of the petitioner from the property by virtue of compromise decree passed on 14.12.1966 cannot be acknowledged because the same amounts to fraud on statute and accordingly, the impugned orders being perverse and illegal need interference by this Court.
6. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that:
3i) Admittedly for a part of the property involved in this case the permission was granted u/s 49 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 which resulted in execution of registered sale deed dated 24.08.1961 and thereafter the property has been further sold to third party.
ii) So far as the other property relating to title suit is concerned, counsel for the respondents submits that the date of dispossession as per the case of the petitioner himself is as back as in the year 1966 and thereafter, the property has been transferred through various registered deed and accordingly, there has been inordinate delay and latches on the part of the petitioner in filing the petition for restoration of land before the Special Officer which was filed only in the year 2000 i.e after expiry of more than 30 years .
iii) The counsel submits that there is no explanation as to why the petitioner did not take any steps and as to why the petitioner slept over the matter for more than 30 long years.
Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioner was time barred and the same has rightly been rejected by the respondent no 4, against which appeal as well as revision has been dismissed .
iv) He further submits that the property which has been transferred after taking due permission u/s 49 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act,1908 , the application filed u/s 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act,1908 is not maintainable. He submits that the petitioner has not been able to point out as to how the permission for transfer was illegal.Otherwise also the application for restoration of land is apparently barred by limitation on account of inordinate and unexplained delay and latches on the part of the petitioner in filing the application.
v) There is no perversity in the impugned order and accordingly, the impugned orders need no interference by this Court. The impugned order has rightly been passed by the authorities which are well reasoned and detailed orders and accordingly they need not be interfered in writ jurisdiction.
7. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this court finds no reasons to give any relief to the petitioners on account of following facts and reasons:-
4a) The petitioner has been dispossessed from the property involved in this case partly by way of registered deed no.
5106 dated 24.08.1961 which was executed after due permission from the competent authority and the counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any point as to how the permission to transfer was illegal or invalid. Moreover there is no explaination on the part of the petitioner as to enormous and unexplained delay in filing the application for restoration under section 71 A of the aforesaid Act only in the year 2000 i.e after expiry of more than 30 years and accordingly, the authorities have rightly held that the petition filed by the petitioner was time barred.
b) So far as other part of the property is concerned , it is the specific case of the petitioner that he was disposed from the said portion of the property by virtue of compromise dated 14.12.1966 in title suit no. 136 of 1966.There is no reason explaination as to why the petitioner slept over the matter for long years and approached the Special Officer, Ranchi in S.A.R. Case No. 106/2000-2001 only in the year 2000. There has been inordinate delay and latches on the part of the petitioner and accordingly, the authorities have rightly held that the petition filed by the petitioner was time barred.
c) Accordingly this court finds that the respondent no 4 has rightly dismissed the petition for restoration of land filed by the petitioner which has been rightly confirmed by the appellate authority and revisional authority . There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders so as to call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
MM (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J)