SITU SAHU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals, by special leave call into question the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court dismissing the writ application of the appellants.

(2.) In the area to which the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') applied, certain lands were originally recorded in the names of Kochya Oraon, Bachua Oraon and Jagna Oraon, ancestors of one Goinda Oraon. They were the recorded tenants of land in Khata No. 13 of village Chhotanagpur. Jagna Oraon died immediately after the revisional survey. Kochya and Bachua surrendered the tenancy pertaining to plot Nos. 588, 1883, 1884 and 1885 in Khata No. 13 admeasuring 2.65 acres of the land to the landlord, the Maharaja of Chhotanagpur by a registered deed dated 7-2-1938. Soon thereafter, the landlord settled the land on the appellants on 25-2-1938. The appellants have been in possession of the land and cultivating it.

(3.) On 3-2-1978 the said Goinda Oraon filed an application under section 71A of the Act for restoration of the land in question on the ground that the appellants had fraudulently acquired the land by means of a 'sada hukumnama'. This application was registered as S.A.R. Case No. 415/77-78. The Special Officer, Ranchi issued notices to the appellants, and after, hearing the parties and recording evidence, came to the conclusion that the land belonged to the ancestors of Goinda, who were members of scheduled tribes and khatiyani holders of the land in question. Although, originally there were four co-sharers in the land, namely, Kochya Oraon, Bachua Oraon, Jagna Oraon and Goinda Oraon, the tenancies were surrendered only by Kochya and Bachua and not by the other two. The surrender was made on 7-3-1938 and the settlement in favour of the appellants was made on 25-3-1938. The Special Officer took the view that the surrender and the settlement of the land constituted one continuing act and was, therefore, contrary to the provisions of the Act. He also held that the surrender was illegal as all the shareholders had not surrendered their rights and decided that by reason of the provisions of Section 71A of the Act the tribals could not have been dispossessed from the aforesaid land. In this view of the matter, he allowed the application for restoration of possession to the applicant Goinda Oraon by an order made on 9-5-1980. The appellant appealed to the Additional Collector, Ranchi who affirmed the view of the Special Officer. A revision petition was also dismissed by the Commissioner upholding the views of the two authorities below.