2025:JHHC:30935 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI S. A. No. 15 of 2021 1. Kanthi Roy, aged about 55 years, son of Late Guju Roy 2. Bikal Roy, aged about 54 years, son of Late Chhotu Roy Both are residents of Village- Damodarpur, P.O.- Domodarpur, P.S.- Dhanbad, District Dhanbad … … Plaintiffs/Appellants/Appellants -Versus- 1. Hiralal Sao, son of Ram Prasad Sao 2. Smt. Lakmania Devi, wife of Bajrangi Sao 3. Viki Sao, son of Late Bajrangi Sao 4. Jyoti Kumar Sao, son of Late Bajrangi Sao 5. Chhotu Sao, son of Late Bajrangi Sao No. 1 to 5 are residents of Hirapur, Hat, P.O & P.S.- Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad ... ... Defendants/Respondents/Respondents 6. Santoy Roy, son of Late Shankar Roy 7. Smt. Bhanu Devi, wife of Late Golak Roy No. 6 and 7 are residents of Village & P.O.- Damodarpur, P.S.- Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad. ... ... Plaintiffs/Respondents/Proforma Respondents --- CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Ms. Niharika Majumdar, Advocate For the Respondents : None --- 14/07.10.2025 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been filed under Section 87(2) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 against the Judgment dated 21.10.2020 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 04 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the appeal has been dismissed, upholding the order dated 20.12.2016 passed by the Revenue Officer, Dhanbad in C.N.T. Case No.1263 of 2008. 3. The suit land is 1.25 acres of land of C.S. Khata No.98 (R.S. Khata No.347), C.S. Plot No.1884 (R.S. Plot No.2080) of Mouza- Damodarpur, Thana No.14, Anchal- Dhanbad, District- Dhanbad. 4. The case of the plaintiffs / appellants / appellants was that the suit land was a raiyati land recorded in the Cadastral Survey in the 2025:JHHC:30935 2 name of the ancestors of the plaintiffs and they have been paying rent continuously to the Government since the time of possessing the suit land. However, during revisional survey operation, the names of the defendants were wrongly entered in the R.S. Khatiyan. Accordingly, the plaintiffs filed the suit under Section 87 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act challenging the wrong entry made as per the R.S. Survey Settlement as published on 31.08.2007, which was registered as C.N.T. Case No.1263 of 2008. 5. On receiving notices, the defendants appeared and contested the suit taking the plea that the lands were surrendered by the erstwhile raiyati holders namely, Shankar Roy, Paltan Roy and Chhotu Roy to the ex-landlord Bhavesh Chandra Bandhopadhyay vide surrender deed dated 17.11.1953 and thereafter, Ram Prasad Sao, the father of the defendants got settlement of the land vide settlement deed dated 22.12.1953 and possession was given to him and since then, the defendants have been possessing suit land exercising all the rights title, interest, cultivation, etc. and Jamabandi No.153 was also opened in the name of the father of the defendants. Therefore, the names have been rightly incorporated in the R.S. Khatiyan pursuant to the R.S. Survey Operation. 6. In course of trial, PW-1 Budhan Roy stated that as per 1932 C.S. Khatiyan, the lands have been found recorded in the name of the ancestors of the plaintiffs namely, Shibu Roy and Dhigar Roy and the lands are still in the possession of the family of the plaintiffs. He further stated that the R.S. Khatiyan entry has been wrongly made in the name of the defendants. During cross-examination, he admitted that the defendants have been paying rent to the Government towards Jamabandi No.153. PW-2 Kanthi Roy who is Plaintiff No.1 himself stated that the old C.S. Khatiyan is in the name of his ancestors and the land is in his possession. During cross-examination, he admitted that the rent is being paid to the Government in the name of his ancestors Shibu Roy. He denied that the land was ever surrendered on 17.11.1953 by his ancestors to the ex-landlord. The plaintiffs 2025:JHHC:30935 3 exhibited the certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in Title (Partition) Suit No.185/1995 as Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2 respectively, certified copy of the Pleader Commissioner’s Report related to Title (Partition) Suit No.185/1995 as Exhibit-3, certified copy of Trace Map as Exhibit-4 and certified copy of Khatiyan of C.S. Khata No.98 as Exhibit-5. 7. On behalf of the defendants, DW-1 Narayan Chandra Mandal stated about the surrender deed dated 17.11.1953 made by the ancestors of the plaintiffs and subsequent settlement in favour of Ram Prasad Sao vide settlement 22.12.1953. DW-2 Krishna Prasad Gupta supported the case of the defendants. 8. The defendants exhibited the certified copy of Surrender Deed No.12231 dated 17.11.1953 as Exhibit-A, certified copy of Settlement Deed dated 22.12.1953 as Exhibit-B, certified copy of order passed in Misc. Case No.88/2011 as Exhibit-C, Government Rent Receipt No.JB/41-407286 dated 11.11.2009 as Exhibit-D, Jamindari Rent Receipt as Exhibit-D/1 and 10 rent receipts showing payment of rent in the name of Ram Prasad Sao, the father of the defendants since 1957-58 till 2009-10 as Exhibits- D/2 to D/11. The defendants also filed the photocopy of the plaint of Title Suit No.59/2005 alongwith their written arguments. 9. After perusal of the records, the learned Revenue Officer, Dhanbad recorded his findings that the present suit is entirely related to right, title, interest and possession, on which Title Suit No.59 of 2005 is pending in the competent court for consideration and held that it is beyond jurisdiction of the court to decide the case and accordingly, rejected the claim of the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. 10. The learned 1st appellate court recorded its findings that the validity of the surrender (Exhibit-A) has not been questioned by the plaintiffs and the subsequent settlement deed (Exhibit-B) has also been filed by the defendants showing settlement of the land again in favour of the father of the defendants on 22.12.1953. The plaintiffs have nowhere tried to demolish the genuineness or veracity of these 2025:JHHC:30935 4 paper and the validity of these papers could not have been decided by a Revenue Court, but until and unless a Civil Court having competent jurisdiction in the matter declared the above two papers, no law bars a Revenue Authority to rely upon these papers. The 1st appellate court further recorded that the plaintiffs have not been able to show as to on what basis they have been claiming their names under the old Khatiyan to continue even under new survey operation of records of rights. 11. With regard to the contention of the plaintiffs that the Revenue Officer has ignored the findings of the judgment passed in T.S. No.185/1995 in violation of the statutory provisions of Section 93 of the C.N.T. Act, the learned 1st appellate court recorded that the plaintiffs have nowhere taken the plea before the Revenue Officer that the decision on any material issue regarding their rights has been made or was pending before the competent Civil Court before final publication of the record of rights. The learned 1st appellate court further recorded that the Revenue Officer has not committed any illegality because while deciding the issue of correction entry, he has found that earlier decision in T.S. No.185/1995 had been made by a Civil Court and thus, a decision in the light of Section 93(2) of the C.N.T. Act could not have been pronounced by the Revenue Officer, that too when the final publication had been made on 31.08.2007. 12. The learned 1st appellate court further recorded that the decision in T.S. No.185/1995 was purely a judgment in personam and the defendants were not parties to that suit and they had to establish their right, title and interest over the land-in-question by filing separate Original Suit No.59/2005. The learned 1st appellate court upheld the order passed by the learned Revenue Officer, Dhanbad and dismissed the civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellants. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the impugned judgment has submitted that Section 93 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act is not applicable as the suit is required to be filed 2025:JHHC:30935 5 prior to final publication of record of rights. This aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the learned court. 14. This Court has gone through the impugned judgments and finds that the final publication of record of rights was made on 31.08.2007 and Original Suit No.59 of 2005 was pending as is apparent from the order passed by the Revenue Officer, Dhanbad by referring to Section 93(2) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act while holding that the suit was not maintainable. 15. Section 93 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act is quoted as under:- “93. Stay of certain proceedings before Deputy Commissioner or Civil Court when record-of-rights finally published - (1) When a record-of-rights in respect of any land has been prepared under this Chapter, and finally published, no application or suit affecting any such land or any tenant thereof shall, within six months from the date of the certificate of final publication of such record-of-rights, be made or instituted before the Deputy Commissioner or in any Civil Court for the decision of any of the following issues, namely – (a) whether the relation of landlord and tenants exists; (b) whether the land is part of a particular estate or tenancy; (c) whether there is any special condition or incident of the tenancy; or (d) whether any easement attaches to the land. (2) If before the final publication of the record-of-rights in such area, a suit involving the decision of any of the issues mentioned in sub-section (1) has been instituted before the Deputy Commissioner or in a Civil Court, the Revenue Officer shall not entertain any suit under Section 87 involving the decision of the same issue. (3) Where the making of an application or the institution of a suit has been delayed by sub-section (1), the period of six months therein mentioned shall be excluded in computing the period of limitation provided for such suit or application. 16. This Court finds that both the courts have rightly held that the suit filed under Section 87 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act was not 2025:JHHC:30935 6 maintainable by referring to Section 93(2) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. 17. This Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgements and finds that no question of law involved in this second appeal filed under section 87 (2) of the CNT Act, 1908 and accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed. 18. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is dismissed as not pressed. 19. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through “Fax/e-mail”. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 07th October, 2025 Rakesh/- Uploaded on: 14th January, 2026.