SHIV SHANKAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has prayed for quashing the order dated 7.1.1998 passed by respondent No. 4 in SAR Case No. 57 of 1976 (Annexure -3) and the order dated 14.4.1979 passed by respondent No. 3 in SAR Appeal No. 148 of 1979 (Annexure -4) as also the order dated 25.8.1998 passed by respondent No. 3 in Ranchi Rev. Revision No. 128 of 1979 (Annexure -7) allowing the application of respondent No. 5 filed under Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (the Act for short).

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 5 filed an application under Section 71A of the Act on 18.3.1976 for restoration of possession of 1.67 decimal of land of Khata No. 158. His father Turia Oraon surrendered the land in question on 14.2.1945 by a registered document to the landlord, who settled the same on 10.3.1945 by Sada Hukumnama to the father of the petitioner.

(3.) 1997 (2) BLJR 1536, that as the surrender and settlement were in quick succession, it was a case of transfer attracting Section 71A of the Act. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of Situ Sahu (Supra) in the case Situ Sahu v. State of Jharkhand. In paragraph 13 of the said judgment it was held that assuming that surrender and settlement were in quick succession and could be viewed as part of same transaction within the meaning of term transfer, nonetheless there was nothing to show that the transfer was contrary to any other provision of the Act. The Supreme Court further held that 40 years was not a reasonable lime for exercise of powers under Section 71A of the Act. In the case on hand, even according to the respondent No. 5, his father surrendered the land in question by registered deed on 14.4.1945. There is nothing to show that the settlement was contrary to any other provision of law. Moreover the application under Section 71A of the Act was filed after 30 years of such surrender/settlement. The contention of respondent No. 5 that petitioner did not derive any title by Sada Hukumnama cannot be gone into in this proceeding under Section 71A of the Act. In the circumstances, there is no option than to allow the writ petition. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs.