Jharkhand HC upholds restoration of tribal land, rejects 1968 compromise decree
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK Ranchi, September 3: The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the restoration of tribal land…
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK
Ranchi, September 3: The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the restoration of tribal land in East Singhbhum, holding that possession claimed on the basis of an old compromise decree could not be accepted when the transaction was in violation of the protective provisions of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, in an order passed on September 1, upheld the orders of the revenue authorities restoring the land in favour of Mamta Singh Munda, widow and legal heir of late Jyotish Singh Munda. The court found no illegality in the orders challenged by the petitioners.
Dispute dates back to 1967 title suit
The petitioners had approached the High Court challenging orders passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dalbhum, the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, and the Commissioner of the Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division in proceedings concerning restoration of the land under Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act.
The disputed land, recorded in the name of Muchi Ram Munda, was claimed by the petitioners, who contended that they had been in peaceful physical possession since 1967. They relied on a compromise in Title Suit No. 791 of 1967 and subsequent mutation of the land in the name of petitioner No. 1.
The petitioners argued that a restoration proceeding initiated decades after their alleged possession was barred by limitation. They also claimed that a house had subsequently been constructed on the land, changing its nature into Chapparbandi land.
HC questions delay in mutation
The High Court, however, noted that although the compromise decree dated back to 1968, the mutation proceeding was instituted only in 1999. The court also took note of rent receipts produced for 2000 and 2003-04.
The court observed that these circumstances indicated that the mutation had not been allowed earlier and was subsequently obtained on the basis of the 1967 title suit and compromise decree.
The petitioners had relied on the principle that proceedings under Section 71-A could be barred if initiated after a prolonged period of possession. The High Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Situ Sahu and Others vs State of Jharkhand and Others, while examining the limitation issue.
Protection against fraudulent transfers under Section 71-A
The court also relied on the Full Bench judgment of the Patna High Court in Bina Rani Ghosh vs Commissioner, South Chota Nagpur Division, which dealt with the scope of Section 71-A.
The High Court noted that Section 71-A provides wide protection to the raiyati rights of members of Scheduled Tribes against unlawful transfers, including transfers made through fraudulent methods and decrees obtained through fraud or collusion.
It further referred to Section 46(3) of the Act, which bars recognition by courts of transfers made in contravention of the statutory restrictions.
Widow entitled to seek restoration
The court rejected the petitioners’ argument that Mamta Singh Munda could not independently seek restoration because her sons had not initiated the proceedings.
It held that she was the widow, first legal heir and successor of late Jyotish Singh Munda and therefore had the right to institute the restoration case under the provisions of the Act.
‘Chapparbandi’ claim also rejected
The High Court also rejected the argument that construction on the land had changed its nature into Chapparbandi land.
The court observed that the land was not originally Chapparbandi land and that construction had been carried out only after the compromise decree. Therefore, the petitioners could not rely on the subsequent construction to defeat the statutory protection available under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act.
Writ petition dismissed
After examining the findings of the revenue authorities and the materials on record, the High Court concluded that the authorities had properly considered the issue of limitation and restored the land in favour of respondent No. 5.
Finding no illegality in the impugned orders, the court dismissed the writ petition. Any pending interlocutory application was also dismissed.
