2025:JHHC:21493 1 Civil Review No.26 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No.26 of 2019 ---- Nayak Lalan Rai, S/o Shri Mahendra Rai, aged about 60 years, resident of Village Rajpura, P.O. Rajpura, P.S Arwal, District-Gaya, presently resident of Village Booty, P.S. Sadar, P.O. Bariatu, District-Ranchi …. …. Petitioner -Versus- 1. Yogendra Mahto, S/o Shri Charku Mahto, resident of Village Sugnu, P.S. Sadar, P.O. Bariatu, District-Ranchi 2. Phulo Devi, W/o Late Ram Kishore Mahto 3. Ashok Kumar Mahto, S/o Late Ram Kishore Mahto 4. Kashi Ram Mahto, S/o Bhikhan Mahto, All resident of Village Booty, P.S. Sadar, P.O Bariatu, District-Ranchi 5. Leela Devi, W/o Late Ganesh Mahto 6. Deepak Kumar Mahto, minor son of Late Ganesh Mahto, represented through his mother Leela Devi 7. Sandeep Kumar Mahto minor son of Late Ganesh Mahto, represented through his mother Leela Devi 8. Anil Kumar Mahto minor son of Late Ganesh Mahto, represented through his mother Leela Devi 9. Soni Kumari minor daughter of Late Ganesh Mahto, represented through her mother Leela Devi All resident of Lupunjora, P.O & P.S. Angara, District-Ranchi …. …. Opposite Parties ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjeev Kr. Sahay, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : ---- 13/Dated: 01st August, 2025 I.A No.7380 of 2019 1. The present interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay of 310 days in filing the present civil review petition. 2. The reason has been assigned that the civil review has been filed after liberty by the Hon’ble Apex Court, vide order dated 28.01.2019 passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary Nos.43235/2018. 2025:JHHC:21493 2 Civil Review No.26 of 2019 3. Considering the aforesaid fact, the delay of 310 days in filing the civil review petition is hereby, condoned. 4. Accordingly, this interlocutory application is hereby, allowed. Civil Review No.26 of 2019 5. Through this civil review petition, the petitioner has made prayer for reviewing the judgment dated 06.07.2018 passed in Second Appeal No.165 of 2015 by this Court. 6. Notices have been issued upon the opposite parties, but in spite of valid service of notices, nobody has appeared on their behalf. 7. The second appeal being S.A No.165 of 2025 has been filed taking the plea that Agreement to sell has been entered into parties while embargo of Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (CNT Act) was relaxed for the land belonging to the backward community vide the executive instruction being Notification No.5 LR-IA-108/10-2388/LR, Patna issued by the Revenue Department, Government of Bihar. Further, plea has been taken of the decision of the Hon’ble Patna High Court passed in Bhazeran Thakur vrs. Kewal Singh & Others, reported in 1969 PLJR 30. It has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said plea has never been raised in the pending proceeding, rather, it has been taken for the first time before the Hon’ble Apex Court. 8. The ground upon which the order can be reviewed is well settled under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section 140 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 9. Be that as it may, even if the plea taken by the petitioner is considered by this Court, then the order of Hon’ble Full Bench of Patna High Court is with regard to Section 49C of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 which is altogether a different Act and its aim and object is also different. The Chota Nagpur Tenancy 2025:JHHC:21493 3 Civil Review No.26 of 2019 Act, 1908 is a special law applicable in the scheduled areas and is for protection of the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe communities. 10. This is not the aim and object neither there is any such provision in the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885. Thus, the order of the Hon’ble Patna High Court does not affect operation of Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. 11. So far as the notification is concerned, the same has been issued in furtherance of order of the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court. In the said notification, the State Government has declared Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 ultra vires which is completely misreading of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. 12. At no point of time, Sections 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 has been declared as ultra vires. Thus, this notification cannot permit the transfer of land from backward community to other class contrary to the restriction imposed by Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. 13. On considering the point raised by the present petitioner independently, I find no reason to review the judgment dated 06.07.2018 passed in Second Appeal No.165 of 2015 by this Court. Accordingly, the present civil review petition is hereby, dismissed. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Raja/- Uploaded