BINA RANI Vs. COMMR SOUTH CHOTA NAGPUR DIVN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the surrender by a scheduled tribe raiyat of his statutory right to hold land for the purposes of cultivation (as defined in section 6) would amount to a transfer within the meaning of S.71A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908? In the alternative would such a surrender directly coupled with the subsequent settlement of such land by the landlord be a transfer within the ambit of the said S.71A of the Act? These are the two significant and inter-related questions which have necessitated this reference to the Full Bench.

(2.) The facts may be noticed with relative brevity having relevance to the issues aforesaid. On the petitioner's own showing, the land in dispute herein stood recorded in the name of Lalu Oraon, the father of respondent 4. The said Lalu Oraon, by a registered deed executed on the 29th Mar. 1954, surrendered the said land in favour of his landlord, Mahendra Narayan Tiwari. This was then purported to be allotted to one Jogendra Narayan Tiwari said to be one of the co-sharers, who executed a registered deed of settlement dt. 30th March, 1954 in favour of Shrimati Mantoran Kuwari on an annual rental of Rs. 134/-. The said settlee later transferred the land in favour of her daughter, Shrimati Parbati Debi by a registered deed of gift dt. 16th Feb. 1979. In turn the said Shrimati Parbati Debi then transferred the land by a registered sale deed dt. 21st Sept. 1981 in favour of the petitioner Shrimati Bina Rani Ghosh.

(3.) Subsequently the petitioner was served with a notice dt. 29th Dec. 1981 by respondent 3, the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi, to show cause why the land should not be restored in favour of Gangaram Oraon, respondent 4. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner appeared and showed cause, and after keen contest, in which evidence was led by the parties, respondent 3, by his order (annexure 4) directed the restoration of the land in favour of respondent No. 4 under S.71A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act (hereinafter called the 'Act'). Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Ranchi, who, by his considered order (annexure 5) dt. 21st Mar. 1984, dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then filed the revision before the Commissioner, which also met the same fate by the latter's detailed order (annexure 6) dt. 9th April, 1984. The present writ petition seeks to challenge the concurrent orders of the aforesaid three authorities.