Jharkhand HC upholds Adivasi land restoration order in Ramgarh
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA Ranchi, August 29: The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the restoration of Adivasi land in Ramgarh district, dismissing a…
SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
Ranchi, August 29: The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the restoration of Adivasi land in Ramgarh district, dismissing a writ petition filed by purchasers who had challenged the revenue authorities’ decision to restore the land in favour of a Scheduled Tribe claimant.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi passed the order on August 25 while hearing W.P.(C) No. 5821 of 2013. The dispute relates to 0.92 acres of land at Ghutwa village under Patratu police station in Ramgarh district.
The petitioners had challenged the May 10, 2013 order of the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, which had set aside an earlier order of the Additional Collector and restored the decision of the LRDC, Ramgarh, allowing the restoration claim in favour of respondent Surpati Devi.
Dispute over land purchased in 1970
The petitioners claimed that the disputed land, recorded under Khata No. 42 and Plot No. 1273, was originally recorded in the names of Bhikhwa Bediya and Bepata Bediya.
According to their case, Sukra Bediya, who inherited the land, sold the 0.92-acre plot to Sadik Miyan through a registered sale deed dated July 2, 1970. The petitioners claimed that Sadik Miyan subsequently remained in possession and cultivated the land.
Surpati Devi, however, claimed that she had purchased 0.67 acres of the plot in 2003 from the occupancy raiyat Sukra Bediya and was subsequently dispossessed. She approached the revenue authorities seeking restoration of the land under the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908.
HC says Bedia is a Scheduled Tribe
A key issue before the High Court was the petitioners’ contention that the Bedia community was not included in the Scheduled Tribe list and, therefore, the restoration claim could not be maintained under the protective provisions of the CNT Act.
The High Court rejected the contention, noting that the September 6, 1950 Gazette notification relating to Bihar clearly included Bedia among the Scheduled Tribes.
The Court also noted that the petitioners admitted they were not members of a Scheduled Tribe and that the revenue authorities had clearly found the disputed land to be Adivasi land.
Protection under CNT Act examined
The Court considered the restrictions on transfer of tribal land under Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act.
The respondent argued that the 2003 purchase was made after obtaining permission from the Deputy Commissioner under Section 46(1) and that she was dispossessed within six months of the purchase. It was therefore argued that her restoration claim was within the prescribed period.
The High Court also considered the statutory protection available to Scheduled Tribe raiyats against illegal transfers and referred to the principles governing restoration of tribal raiyati land where a transfer has taken place in violation of Section 46 or other provisions of the CNT Act.
2013 writ petition dismissed
After examining the records, rival submissions and applicable provisions, the High Court found no illegality in the order passed by the revisional authority.
The Court accordingly dismissed W.P.(C) No. 5821 of 2013. Any pending interlocutory petition was also disposed of.
The ruling reinforces the protective framework governing Adivasi and Scheduled Tribe land in Jharkhand, particularly restrictions on transfer and the statutory mechanism for restoration of land where the law has been violated.
