SUMAN K SHRIVASTAVA
Ranchi, March 19: Bringing an end to a long-running land dispute from Dumka, the Jharkhand High Court has ruled in favour of Kedar Baid and dismissed a title suit filed by Lobin Manjhi, holding that the case was filed too late and was barred under the law.
The dispute relates to land in Bara Karaila and Gajanda villages in Dumka district. The land had been recorded in the name of Kedar Baid’s mother during settlement proceedings conducted under the Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation, 1872.
Earlier Challenges Failed
The court noted that Lobin Manjhi had challenged the entry during the settlement process. The Assistant Settlement Officer rejected his objection on December 10, 1982.
He later filed a settlement objection case in 1984–85, which was dismissed in 1988. His appeal was also rejected in 1992. Despite these repeated attempts, he could not establish his claim.
Final Record of Rights in 1998
The final record of rights for the land was published in 1998 in favour of Kedar Baid’s mother. As per law, this gave interested parties a limited time to raise objections.
However, no objection was filed by Lobin Manjhi within the required period.
What the Law Says
The High Court relied on provisions of the Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation, 1872:
- Section 24: Objections must be filed within six months of publication
- Section 25(1): After six months, records become final and conclusive
- Section 25(3): Final records cannot be reopened without fresh settlement
- Section 11: Bars the civil court’s jurisdiction in such matters
The court held that once this legal process is complete, the entries have the force of a decree.
Delayed Suit Filed in 2006
Despite the finalisation of records, Lobin Manjhi filed a fresh title suit in 2006, nearly eight years later, seeking a declaration of rights and recovery of possession.
The High Court observed that this delay made the suit clearly time-barred and not maintainable under the law.
Court Calls Suit an ‘Afterthought’
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi described the case as an “afterthought,” noting that earlier objections had already been rejected and no fresh challenge was made within the legal time frame.
The court emphasised that settled land records cannot be reopened in such a manner.
Lower Court Order Set Aside
The High Court also found that the Dumka civil court had made an error in 2010 by refusing to reject the plaint.
It clarified that under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, courts must reject a plaint at the initial stage if the suit is barred by law.
The court rejected the argument that the transfer of the case to a civil court allowed it to proceed. It held that statutory bars under the settlement law still apply, and civil courts cannot hear such cases.
Final Verdict
The High Court set aside the order dated May 12, 2010, passed by the Sub-Judge, Dumka, and allowed Kedar Baid’s petition. The plaint in Title Suit No. 88 of 2006 filed by Lobin Manjhi was rejected.
The ruling brings finality to the dispute and reinforces that land records, once finalised under the law, cannot be challenged after the prescribed time limit.
