p. 1 L.P.A. No. 335 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 335 of 2024 Sadhu Oraon, aged about 74 years, Son of Late Mangal Oraon, Resident of New Madhukam, P.O. & P.S. – Sukhdeongar, District – Ranchi. …… APPELLANT/RESPONDENT - Versus - 1. Mahendra Choudhary, Son of Ram Anugrah Choudhary @ Ram Choudhary. 2. Motilal Choudhary, Son of Siman Choudhary. 3. Ramanand Choudhary, Son of Dwarika Prasad Choudhary. 4. Singheswar Prasad Singh, Son of Late Akhileshwar Prasad Singh @ Banwari Singh. All Residents of New Madhukam, Chuna Bhatha, P.O. & P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi. …RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 5. The State of Jharkhand. 6. Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, P.O. – G.P.O., Ranchi, P.S. – Kotwali, District – Ranchi. 7. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O. – G.P.O., Ranchi, P.S. – Kotwali, District – Ranchi. 8. Special Officer, Scheduled Areas Regulation, Ranchi, P.O. – G.P.O., Ranchi, P.S. – Kotwali, District – Ranchi. … RESPONDENTS/PERFORMA RESPONDENTS --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Appellant: Mr. Yogendra Prasad, Advocate For the State-Resps: Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, S.C.-IV --------- Reserved on: 22.01.2025 Pronounced on: 6/02/2025 Per M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 16.04.2024 in W.P. (C) No. 2534 of 2006 of the learned Single Judge. 2. The appellant had filed an application seeking restoration of certain land before the 8th Respondent. It was registered as S.A.R. Case No.165 of 1996, but it was dismissed. Page 2 of 6 L.P.A. No. 335 of 2024 3. The appellant challenged the same by filing an appeal before the 7th Respondent. 4. The appeal was numbered as S.A.R. Appeal No.239 of 98-99. The 7th Respondent set aside the order of the 8th Respondent and remitted the matter again to the 8th Respondent on 03.06.2002. 5. The Respondents 1 to 4 and others filed S.A.R. Revision No.69 of 2002 before the 6th Respondent, but he refused to interfere with the same and dismissed it. 6. The orders of both the appellate authority and the Revisional authority were questioned by Respondents 1 to 4 in the W.P. (C) No. 2534 of 2006. W.P. (C) No.2534 of 2006 The case of respondent no.s 1 to 4 before the learned single Judge 7. In the writ petition, the Respondents 1 to 4 argued that the land in question was recorded in the name of Ram Chandra Sahu, son of Kolha Sahu, in the Revisional Survey Record of Rights published in 1935; therefore, he became a raiyat in respect of the said land and he was accepted by the State as a tenant after vesting. They also contended that he executed a Gift Deed of the entire land to his daughter and five minor sons on 23.08.1961 and they were admitted into possession. 8. They contended that Ram Chandra Sahu died in 1965 and his wife/widow Rukmini Sahu died sometime thereafter; and then, the donees came into peaceful possession of the land. They further contended that the property was partitioned among the five grandsons of Ram Chandra Sahu in Partition Suit No.128 of 1979 and Plot p. 3 L.P.A. No. 335 of 2024 No.631/C was allotted to the share of Murari Lal, son of Kanchan Lal Sahu. 9. It was also contended that there was a litigation between Kanchan Lal Sahu and one Ajmal and Aslam with respect to the land in question and this resulted in a compromise in Title Suit No. 157 of 1979 in the Court of the Munsif, Ranchi. 10. It is contended that on the basis of the compromise, a registered Sale Deed was executed by Murari Lal along with Ajmal Hussain and Aslam Ansari in favour of Ramanugrah Chaudhary, (father of 1st Respondent and his brother Rajendra Choudhary (the 1st petitioner in the writ petition)) on 13.10.1984, who, on the strength of the sale deed, came into possession and constructed a pucca building on the plot and is residing and paying rent to the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. 11. It is also contended that the 8th Respondent passed a well reasoned order dismissing the claim of the appellant, but the 7th Respondent had remitted it back without recording any specific reason for the same. The case of appellant before the learned single Judge 12. The appellant, on the other hand, contended that the land was recorded in the name of one Kaila Oraon in the Record of Rights finally published after the revisional survey in 1935 and there was a village note, which the Respondents 1 to 4 had relied on, which had certain interpolation and, therefore, it is doubtful. 13. It was also contended that there was no evidence after vesting that Ram Chandra Sahu or his heirs continued in possession of the land p. 4 L.P.A. No. 335 of 2024 in question and were accepted as tenant by the State and that, therefore, the 7th Respondent was justified in remitting the matter back to the 8th Respondent. He also contended that he was in possession of the land till 1984. The judgment of learned single Judge 14. The learned Single Judge held that the entries in the Record of Rights are evidence of possession and though the land was recorded in the name of Kaila Oraon, possession of Ram Chandra Sahu was shown in the remarks column as ‘sikmi raiyat’ since 1935; that as per village note, ‘sikmi raiyat’ was heritable; and authenticity of entries in the Record of Rights cannot be raised in a Writ Court, since there was a presumption of correctness of such entries made in a finally published Record of Rights under Section 84(3) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. 15. The Deputy Commissioner (7th Respondent) also filed a counter affidavit stating that the village note relied upon by the Respondents 1 to 4 has been genuinely issued by the District Record Room, Ranchi. 16. The learned Single Judge held that after abolition of Zamindari, Ram Chandra Sahu was accepted as a raiyat without any opposition from any quarter, that the land was transferred by him by executing a registered Deed of Gift to his daughter Shakuntala Devi in 1961 and her sons partitioned the same in Partition Suit No.128 of 1979. 17. The learned Single Judge also held that the restoration application had been filed by the appellant in 1996 claiming through Mangal Oraon, but Mangal Oraon in 1971 had filed a civil suit being p. 5 L.P.A. No. 335 of 2024 Title Suit No. 17 of 1971 against Rukmini Sahu, widow of Ram Chandra Sahu, for declaration of his raiyati right, but the suit was dismissed for default on 16.06.1975. 18. The learned Single Judge also held that if the appellant’s predecessors were really in possession till 1984 as claimed, there was no need for Mangal Oraon to have filed in 1971 Title Suit No.17/1971; and that in view of the documentary evidence on record, oral evidence cannot be relied upon. 19. He further held that even if 1971 was taken as a date of alleged dispossession, the restoration case had been filed after a delay of 35 years which was not a reasonable time for its filing. 20. Therefore, the learned Single Judge set aside both the orders passed in S.A.R. Appeal No.239/98-99 and S.A.R. Revision No.69/2002. He therefore allowed the Writ Petition. The LPA 21. Counsel for the appellant sought to contend that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge was incorrect and the learned Single Judge ought not to have allowed the writ petition upholding the dismissal of the restoration case only. 22. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, in the Revisional Survey Record of Rights published in 1935, the land was recorded in the name of Ram Chandra Sahu and he was shown as ‘sikmi raiyat’ and this was reiterated in the village note prepared and published by the Government at that time. The Deputy Commissioner had filed counter affidavit in the Writ Petition certifying that the village note was p. 6 L.P.A. No. 335 of 2024 genuine. Under Section 84 of the Act, there was a presumption of such entries made in the Record of Rights. 23. The possession of Ram Chandra Sahu’s family can be presumed to continue, though he died in 1965 in view of the registered Partition Deed between the five grandsons of Ram Chandra Sahu, and also the compromise deed in Title Suit No. 157 of 1979 between the family members of Ram Chandra Sahu and 3rd parties who later executed registered Deed in favour of Ramanugrah Choudhary, the father of the 1st Respondent and 1st writ petitioner on 13.10.1984. 24. The plea of the appellant that he was in continuity of possession till 1984 cannot be accepted, particularly, since Mangal Oraon, through whom he is claiming, had himself filed Title Suit No.17 of 1971 against the widow of Ram Chandra Sahu for declaration of his right, which came to be dismissed for default on 16.06.1975. 25. This indicates that the person, through whom the appellant was claiming, had no possession from 1971. Admittedly, the application for restoration was filed only in 1996, long afterwards. 26. At this belated stage, such applications cannot be entertained when there is no explanation for the delay. 27. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) N.F.R Manoj/-