2026:JHHC:5010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.561 of 2026 ---- 1. Sampati Mahato, aged about 71 years 2. Dhananjay Mahato, aged about 65 years. Both sons of Late Lakhinder Mahato, Resident of Dobo, P.O. Kapali, P.S. Chandil, District Saraikella Kharsawan. At present residing at Sonari, Behind Shahid Nirmal Mahto Bhawan, P.O & P.S. Sonari, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singbhum …. …. Petitioners -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Saraikella Kharsawan, P.O. & P.S Saraikella, District Saraikella Kharsawan 3. Sub Registrar, District Sub Registry Office, Saraikella, P.O. & P.S. Saraikella, District Saraikella Kharswan 4. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chandil, P.O. & P.S. Chandil, District- Saraikella Kharswan 5. Circle Officer, Chandil, P.O. & P.S. Chandil, District-Saraikella Kharswan 6. Hi-Tech Heritage Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered office at White House, 4-D, 119 Park Street, P.O. & P.S. Park Street, District Kolkata, West Bengal-700016 represented by Sri Aditya Narayan Mahato, Aged about 45 years, son of Sri Kamala Kant Mahato, Resident of Village Shukla P.O. & P.S. Patamda, District-East Singbhum …. …. Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ---- For the Petitioners : Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sonal Tiwary, AC to AG For the Respondent No.6 : Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Adv. : Mr. Pratyush Shounikya, Adv. ---- 04/Dated: 19th February, 2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “(1) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents concerned not to violate the proviso laid down under section 46 (1) (b) of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act and also to safeguard the interest of the petitioners in his raiyati land recorded under Khata No.166 bearing Plot No. 679 area 78 decimals, Plot No.680 area 59 decimals, Plot No.681 area 75 decimals, Plot No.682 area 05 decimals and plot no. 683 area 384 decimals. The total area measuring 602 decimals equivalent to 18.24 bigha situated at Mouza- Dobo, Revenue Thana No. 331, Halka No.02. PS Chandil, District- Saraikella Kharsawan, which is violative of Article 14, 21 and 300A of the 2026:JHHC:5010 2 W.P.(C) No.561 of 2026 Constitution of India and also is the utter violation of the principle of natural justice. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents state authorities restraining the respondent no.6 to use the land recorded under land recorded under Khata No.166 bearing Plot No.679 area 78 decimals, Plot No.680 area 59 decimals, Plot No. 681 area 75 decimals, Plot No.682 area 05 decimals and plot no.683 area 384 decimals, altogether total area measuring 602 decimals equivalent to 18.24 bigha situated at Mouza- Dobo, Revenue Thana No.331, Halka No.02, P.S Chandil, District- Saraikella Kharsawan, since the transfer of land is in violation of Provision under section 46 (1) (b) of the CNT Act.” 3. The land, in question, has been sold by the family members through whom the petitioners are claiming title in the year 2011, to be precise, vide registered Sale Deed No.3249 dated 06.05.2011 and registered Sale deed No.6373 dated 18.12.2010. 4. The case of the petitioners is that they belong to the Other Backward Category, and as such, the land cannot be sold outside the Class, rather, it has to be sold within Class. Thus, revenue thana and the class, both have been violated and as such, Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy, Act, 1908 comes into play and the land, in question, should be restored to the writ petitioners after annulling the sale deed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the private respondent has argued that the present litigation is not maintainable as the cause of action has been lost by the efflux of time. The aforesaid section itself provides limitation period of twelve years from the cause of action and in the present case the cause of action is of 06th May, 2011 while the dispute has been raised on 14.01.2026 i.e., much beyond the prescribed period of limitation. 6. To substantiate his claim, learned counsel for the private respondent has relied upon the judgments in the case of Suraj Deo Singh vrs. Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, reported in (1993) 1 PLJR 473. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow:- 2026:JHHC:5010 3 W.P.(C) No.561 of 2026 “15. Section 46 (4A) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act reads as follows :- “(4A) (a). The Deputy Commissioner may, of his own motion or on an application filed before him by occupancy-raiyat who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes, for annulling the transfer on the ground that the transfer was made in contravention of clause (a) of the second proviso to sub-section (1), held an inquiry in the prescribed manner to determine it the transfer has been made in contravention of clause (a) of the second proviso to sub-section (1): Provided that no such application be entertained by the Deputy Commissioner unless it is filed by the occupancy-tenant within a period of twelve years from the date of transfer of his holding or any portion thereof: Provided further that before passing any order under clause (b) or clause (c) of this sub-section, the Deputy Commissioner shall give the parties concerned a reasonable opportunity to be heard in the matter. (b) If after holding the inquiry referred to in clause (a) of this sub- section, the Deputy Commissioner finds that there was no contravention of clause (a) of the second proviso to sub-section (1) in making such transfer, he shall reject the application and may award such costs to the transferee to be paid by the transferor as he may in the circumstances of the case deem fit. (c) If after the inquiry referred to in clause (a) of this sub-section, the Deputy Commissioner finds that such transfer was made in contravention of clause (a) of the second proviso to sub-section (1), he shall annul the transfer and eject the transferee from such holding or portion thereof, as the case may be, and put the transferor in possession thereof: Provided that if the transferee has constructed any building or structure, such holding or portion thereof, the Deputy Commissioner shall, if the transferor is not willing to pay the value of the same, order the transferee to remove the same within a period of six months from the date of the order, or within such extended time not exceeding two years from the date of the order as the Deputy Commissioner may allow failing which the Deputy Commissioner may get such building or structure removed : Provided further that where the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that the transferee has constructed a substantial structure of building on such holding or portion thereof before commencement of the Chotanagpur Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1969 (President''s Act 4 of 1969) he may, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, validate such a transfer made in contravention of clause (a) of the second proviso to sub-section (1), if the transferee either makes available to the transferor an alternative holding or portion of a holding, as the case may be, of the equivalent value, in the vicinity or pays adequate compensation to be determined by the Deputy Commissioner for rehabilitation of the transferor.” 16. The said provision had been inserted in the Parent Act by reason of Chotanagpur Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1975 (Bihar Act no. 11/76), the proviso appended to clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act provides for the period of limitation mentioned which provisions will, therefore, apply in the instant case and thus, evidently, the period of limitation provided for under the provisions of Bihar Schedule Area Regulation, 1969, cannot have any application whatsoever. 17. In this view of the matter, It cannot be said that the period of limitation for filing an application under section 46 (4A) of the said Act will be 30 years and not 12 years. 18. It is true that the provisions of a beneficent legislation should be construed liberally but that does not mean that the court will interpret 2026:JHHC:5010 4 W.P.(C) No.561 of 2026 the said provisions in such a way so as to over-step the legislative object. It is now well known that a statute is required to be construed liberally. 19. As in the instant case, admittedly, the alleged transfer which is sought to be annuled on the ground that the same was made in contravention of clause (a) of the second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act took place in the year 1962; in terms of the proviso appended to Section 46(4A) thereof, the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain an application, if the same was not filed by the occupancy tenant within a period of 12 years from the date of transfer of his holding or any portion thereof. 20. There cannot, thus, be any doubt whatsoever that the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner is barred to entertain such an application if the transfer sought to be annuled took place more than 12 years prior to filing of such an application. The word ''entertainment'' mean "admitted for hearing or enquiry". What is, thus prohibited is initiation of any proceeding to be conducted by the Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of finding out as to whether any transfer has been made in violation of the provisions of Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act or not. 21. In such a situation, it must be held that upon expiry of the period of limitation, the Deputy Commissioner will have not jurisdiction whatsoever to make enquiry with regard to an allegation that immovable property has been transferred by a member of the scheduled tribes in contravention of the provisions of Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. In this view of the matter evidently the application filed byh the respondent Nos.4 and 5 was barred under the law of limitation.” 7. He has further relied upon the judgment in the case of Malo Devi vrs. The State of Bihar and Others, reported in (1992) 2 PLJR 343. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- “8. In terms of the proviso appended to Section 46(4A) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, the Deputy Commissioner is precluded from entertaining any application after a period of 12 years from the date of transfer made by a member of scheduled tribe in violation of the provisions of clause (b) of second proviso appended to Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. 9. In this case the date of transfer is 17.7.1947. In that view of the matter, the application under section 46(4A) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act having been filed in the year 1947, i.e., much after lapse of a period of 12 years, the same was apparently barred under the law of limitation.” 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it appears that the admitted facts of the present case which has been brought to the notice of this Court are as follows:- (i) The description of land of the petitioners:- “Khata No.166 bearing Plot No. 679 area 78 decimals, Plot No.680 area 59 decimals, Plot No.681 area 75 decimals, Plot No.682 area 05 decimals and plot no. 683 area 384 decimals. The total area measuring 602 decimals 2026:JHHC:5010 5 W.P.(C) No.561 of 2026 equivalent to 18.24 bigha situated at Mouza-Dobo, Revenue Thana No. 331, Halka No.02. PS Chandil, District-Saraikella Kharsawan.” (ii) The impugned piece of land belongs to member of the Other Backward Class (OBC). (iii) The transaction has been taken place and no allegation of fraud has been alleged, rather the allegation of violation of Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy, Act, 1908 is on two counts i.e., beyond Class and even beyond revenue thana, issue has not been argued but it has to be taken into zone of consideration. (iv) The law itself provides that such transaction can be annulled only within twelve years of the transfer, not beyond that. 9. The section itself provides remedy with period of limitation. The present litigation has been initiated after the period of limitation and there is no concept of condonation of limitation in the original proceeding. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court finds that the lis raised is not worth to be considered in view of the limitation provided under Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy, Act, 1908. 11. Accordingly, the present writ petition is hereby, disposed of being not maintainable. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Dated: 19th February, 2026 Raja/- Uploaded on 27.02.2026