2025:JHHC:16366 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 4225 of 2001 ----- 1. Anil Kumar Agarwal, S/o Ram Awatar Agrawal, R/o Jokhi Ram Market, J.J. Road, Ranchi 2. (a) Sanjiv Agarwal, S/o Late Lal Mohan Agarwal and Late Shakuntala Devi Agarwal (b) Rajiv Agarwal, S/o Late Lal Mohan Agarwal and Late Shakuntala Devi Agarwal, both R/o Bye Pass Road, Chas, P.S.-Chas, Dist.-Bokaro 3, Sushil Kumar Agarwal, S/o Radheshyam Agarwal, R/o Bye Pass Road, Chas, P.S.-Chas, Dist.-Bokaro 4. Pawan Kumar Agrawal, S/o Late Radheshyam Agarwal, R/o Bye Pass Road, Chas, P.S.-Chas, Dist.-Bokaro 5(a) Manish Kumar Agarwal, S/o Ram Awatar Agarwal, R/o Bye Pass Road, Chas, P.S.-Chas, Dist.-Bokaro 6. Smt. Bimla Devi Agrawal, W/o Ram Awatar Agarwal, R/o Bye Pass Road, Chas, P.S.-Chas, Dist.-Bokaro … …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi 3. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi 4. Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi 5(i) Asha Singh, W/o Late Narendra Deo Singh, R/o Mandir Kothi, Kanke Road, Ranchi, P.S.Gonda Town, P.O. Ranchi University, Dist.- Ranchi 5(ii) Shailesh Kr. Singh, S/o Late Narendra Deo Singh, R/o Mandir Kothi, Kanke Road, Ranchi, P.S.Gonda Town, P.O. Ranchi University, Dist.-Ranchi 5(iii) Manish Kr. Singh, S/o Late Narendra Deo Singh, R/o Mandir Kothi, Kanke Road, Ranchi, P.S.Gonda Town, P.O. Ranchi University, Dist.-Ranchi 5(iv) Seema Singh, D/o Late Narendra Deo Singh, R/o Mandir Kothi, Kanke Road, Ranchi, P.S.Gonda Town, P.O. Ranchi University, Dist.- Ranchi 5(v) Preeti Singh, D/o Late Narendra Deo Singh, R/o Mandir Kothi, Kanke Road, Ranchi, P.S.Gonda Town, P.O. Ranchi University, Dist.- Ranchi … …. Respondents With C.W.J.C. No. 2800 of 2000(R) 1. Smt. Asha Singh, W/o Late Narendra Deo Singh 2. Sri Shailesh Kumar Singh, S/o Late Narendra Deo Singh 3. Sri Manish Kumar Singh, S/o Late Narendra Deo Singh 4. Smt. Seema Singh, D/o Late Narendra Deo Singh 5. Smt. Preeti Singh, D/o Late Narendra Deo Singh, All R/o “Mandir Kothi” Kanke Road, Ranchi P.S., Gonda, P.O. Gandhinagar, Dist.- Ranchi-834008 … …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi 2025:JHHC:16366 2 3. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi 4. Jwala Prasad Thanthania, S/o Gobardhan Das Thanthania, of Annapurna Rice Mills, Missirgonda, P.S.-Gondatown, Dist.-Ranchi … …. Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Petitioners : M/s Indrajit Sinha, Advocate & Ms. Puja Agarwal, Advocate (In W.P.(C) No.4225/01) Mr. Siddhartha J. Roy, Advocate (in CWJC No.2800/2000(R)) For the Respondent : Mr. Awnish Shekhar, AC to AAG-1 (in W.P.(C)4225/2001) Mr. Vineet Prakash, AC to SC-IV (in CWJC No. 2800/2000(R)) ----- Oral Order 31 / Dated : 19.06.2025 1. Both these writ petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, arise out of a common order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi dated 30.10.1996 in Case No. 78 R-28/92-93 and the Appellate Order dated 25.07.2000 passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Revenue Appeal No. 519/1996 with respect of R.S. Plot No. 1767, Khata No.181, area 81 decimals and Plot No. 1768, Khata No. 26, area 87 decimals, total area 1.68 acres of Village Missirgonda, District-Ranchi. 2. Both the Petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order, by which the land in question has been declared to be abandoned. 3. The Deputy Commissioner vide impugned order held that the recorded tenant Jwala Prasad Thanthania had abandoned the land and had not paid the rent with respect to it, therefore, it was declared to be abandoned in terms of Section 73(2) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (for short CNT Act). 4. The order was passed ex-parte against Jwala Prasad Thanthania, whereas Ashok Kumar Singh had appeared as an objector in the said case claiming possession over the said land. The objection was overruled and both the plots were declared to be abandoned. 5. It is argued by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 4225 of 2001 that the land in question was recorded in the records of right as homestead (chhaparbandi) land and the law is settled that CNT Act will not apply to chhaparbandi land. The 2025:JHHC:16366 3 legal position of non-application of CNT Act, to homestead plot is not in dispute and is admitted in para 16 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State in pursuance to the order dated 12.12.2024. 6. It is further argued that both Plot no. 1767 and 1768 have been recorded as homestead in the revisional survey record of right. 7. So far as Plot no. 1768 is concerned, jamabandi has been made, on entries being made in Register II and the rent has been paid paid up-to the year 1968-69 by the Petitioners in W. P. (C) No. 4225 of 2001. This has been admitted in the counter affidavit at para 16 and also has been referred in the impugned order. 8. With regard to plot no. 1767, it is admitted that Register-II entries have not been made and no rent were paid with respect to it. It is however contended that on non-payment of rent, the land per se cannot be declared as abandoned under Section 73(2) of the CNT Act, rather there is a given procedure under Sections 58, 59 and 60 of the CNT Act. Without taking recourse to these provisions, the learned Deputy Commissioner has declared the land to be abandoned. It is further argued that as per plot no. 1767, it is chhaparbandi land as per the record of right filed by way of supplementary affidavit. Therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner declaring it to be abandoned was not sustainable. 9. So far as plot no. 1768 is concerned, there is no entry in register II and so far as plot no. 1767 is concerned, rent has been paid only up-to 1968. These are non-payment of rent not opening of the jamabandi with respect to plot no. 1768 and evidence of no abandonment. So far as the civil suit is concerned, it is argued that abandonment of land is not an issue and the State is not even party in that case which is between both these petitioners. Reliance is placed on the Division Bench of Patna High Court in 1984 SCC Online 7 wherein it has been held that Section 71A will not apply if the land was chhaparbandi and will be governed by the Transfer of Property Act. 10. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 2800 of 2000(R) that the petitioners are in continuous peaceful possession of the land over both these plots since 1948. The 2025:JHHC:16366 4 possession of the petitioner is established by the manner in which the land has been dealt with since 1948. In evidence of possession, it is submitted that he is having electrical connection since 1976 and re- connection was taken in the name of Govind Das Bhrahmchari since 1976 (Annexure-1) and had been paying municipal tax to Ranchi Municipality from 1972-1978, the municipal receipt form has been filed along with water connection receipt (Annexures-2 &3). 11. The sum and substance of the argument of Mr. Sinha in both the cases is that in view of the nature of chhaparbandi, no order under Section 71A of CNT Act could have been passed, as Tenancy Act would not apply. For non-payment of rent, the only course opened to the State for recovery of rent as per Chapter 9 of the CNT Act. 12. Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned order and submitted that it has specifically come in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Revenue Appeal No. 519/1996 dated 25.07.2000 that the recorded tenant paid the rent up-to 1968 with respect to Plot No. 1767 and it was an agriculture holding and, therefore, was amenable to the Tenancy Act 1908 non-payment of the rent made it to amenable to the provision under Section 73 of CNT Act which the order of abandonment has been passed. FINDING 13. Having considered the submission advanced on behalf of both sides, admittedly both these plots of land were recorded as homestead in the remark column of R.S. records of right and was recorded in the name of Jwala Prasad Thanthania. It is also not in dispute that so far as Plot No. 1767 is concerned, the rent was paid up-to the year 1968, and further rent from 1967-68 to 1993-94 was paid by Ashok Kumar Singh with respect to Plot No. 1767, as per the impugned order. So far as Plot No. 1768 is concerned, although it finds mentioned in the Khatiyan but neither entry was made in Register-II nor any rent was paid with respect to it. 14. With respect to Plot No. 1768, there is admission in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No. 4225 of 2001 that there was a standing building in the said plot which has been referred to as “gkrk esa dksBh”. 2025:JHHC:16366 5 15. From the pleadings of the parties and the materials on record, the undisputed fact that emerges is that both these plots being Plot No. 1767 area 87 decimal under Khata No. 183 and plot No. 1768 area 81 decimal under Khata No. 26 were homestead plots situated in Mouza Misirgonda, Dist.-Ranchi. 16. The short question that falls for consideration is whether Section 73(2) of the CNT Act will apply and holding could have been declared abandoned for non-payment of rent? 17. It is settled law that the Tenancy Act does not apply to homestead plot. (Refer to1990 PLJR 707, 2004 SCC Online Jhar 173 & 1984 SCC Online Patna 7) 18. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable as the holding could not have been declared as abandoned in terms of Section 73 of CNT Act. The impugned order is set aside. W.P.(C) No. 4225 of 2001 as well as C.W.J.C. No. 2800 of 2000(R) are allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satendra