2026:JHHC:3152 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 1131 of 2005 1. Rajedra Prajapati (deleted and substituted vide order dated 08.01.2014) 1(a) Vinod Kumar Prajapati 1(b) Vijay Kumar Both Sons of Late Rajendra Prajapati and resident of Mohulsai Road, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District Singhbhum (East) 1(c) Sarita Devi, wife of Anil Prajapati, resident of Jasidih, Near Station, District Deoghar 1(d) Sumita Devi, wife of Om Prakash, resident of William Town, Deoghar 1(e) Bikky Devi, wife of Ram Narayan Pandit, resident of Lalpur Chowak Town and District Ranchi 1(c) to 1(e) are all daughters of Late Rajendra Prajapati. 2. Lakhan Prajapati (deleted and substituted vide order dated 22.07.2025) 2(a) Pawan Kumar, son of Late Lakhan Prajapati 2(b) Deepak Kumar, son of Late Lakhan Prajapati 2(c) Sangeeta Kumari, daughter of Late Lakhan Prajapati 2(d) Neelam Kumari, daughter of Late Lakhan Prajapati All R/o Mohulsai Road, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum 3. Jiwan Prajapati. Appellant nos. 1, 2 and 3 are sons of Late Ram Chandra Prajapati, resident of Mohulsai Road, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District Singhbhum West. … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Commissoiner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa, District Singhbhum West 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa, District Singhbhum West 4. The Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa, Districdt Singhbhum West 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West 6. Dadu Ho, son of Late Chaitan Deogam 7. Jogen Ho, son of Late Putkar Ho 8. Bingh Ho, son of Late Putkar Ho 2026:JHHC:3152 2 9. Madni Kui Ho, wife of Late Nago Ho. (deleted and substituted vide order dated 20.03.2023) 9(a) Duliya Deogam, resident of village Dumbersai, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum at Chaibasa 10. Pandu Ho. Minor son of Late Nagu Ho (deleted and substituted vide order dated 20.03.2023) 10(a) Jogo Deogam, resident of house no. 69, village Dumbersai, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum at Chaibasa 11. Dublia Ho. Minor son of Late Nagu Ho. 12. Jema Mai, minor daughter of Late Nagu Ho. Nos. 10, 11, 12 are under guardianship of their mother namely Madni Kui (No. 9) 13. Junai Kui @ Pani Jui, wife of Late Pandu Ho. 14. Chota Ho. Minor son of Late Pandu Ho. 15. Jarka, Minor son of Late Pandu Ho. Nos. 14 & 15 are under guardianship of their mother, namely, Junai Kui (No. 13) Respondent Nos. 6 to 15 are resident of village Dumbersai, P.S. Muffasil, PO Chaibasa, District Singhbhum West. … … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Petitioners : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate --- 30/5th February 2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: - “for quashing the order dated 8.2.2005 passed in Singhbhum Revenue Revision No. 157 of 1991 contained in Annexure-6 by the Commissioner Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division Chaibasa (Respondent No-2) whereby the Learned Commissioner hold that the transfer of the lands in question (i.e. plot no 114, under Khata no -80 area12 decimals) under section 49 of the C.N.T. Act is illegal and rejected the revision application filed by the father of the petitioners namely Ram Chandra Prajapati and also for quashing the order dated 10.12.91 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Singhbhum West in S.A.R. Appeal No. 6 of 1988-89 contained in Annexure-3 and also for quashing the 2026:JHHC:3152 3 order dated 11.4.88 passed in S.A.R. Case No. 1 of 1987-88 by the S.D.O. Sadar at Chaibasa contained in Annexure 2.” 3. It is submitted that the only surviving point which remains for consideration by this Court is as to whether the proceeding initiated under Section 71-A of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CNT Act’) was at all maintainable or the remedy was available to the private opposite party under the provision of Section 49(5) of the CNT Act. Argument of the petitioners 4. While giving the foundational background of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that admittedly, the property is covered under Section 49 of the CNT Act and it is a Bhuinhari tenure and with respect to transfer of such property, there is a specific provision mentioned therein for which permission is required to be taken from the competent authority. 5. The learned counsel submits that in order to seek permission for transfer , one Miscellaneous Case No. 76/1981-82 was initiated upon application filed by the owner of the property and after hearing, vide order dated 13.02.1982, it was recorded that the recorded raiyat had expired and the applicant was the successor of the recorded raiyat and that the property was not fit for cultivation and the permission for transfer of land was granted for a specific purpose, that is, manufacture of tiles by observing that this would also provide employment to 15–20 persons. 6. The learned counsel submits that thereafter the consideration amount was also fixed at Rs. 5,500/- and the deed of transfer was required to be placed before the competent authority for approval. He submits that the required approval with respect to the terms and conditions of the deed of transfer was also approved vide order dated 15.02.1982. The learned counsel submits that thereafter the registered deed of transfer was executed, the required mutation in the revenue records was also carried out and the father of the petitioners came in possession of the property. 2026:JHHC:3152 4 7. The learned counsel submits that it is the case of the petitioners that there has been no violation of the terms and conditions of transfer and for that purpose he has referred to the registration certificate in connection with setting up of the Unit as contained in Annexure-9 and 9/1. 8. The learned counsel submits that a petition being S.A.R. Case No. 01/1987-88 was initiated against the father of the petitioners under Section 71-A of the CNT Act seeking restoration of land covered by the said registered deed of transfer. Such petition was filed before the Sub- Divisional Officer, Chaibasa alleging that the property was not being utilized for the purpose for which the transfer was made and the father of the petitioners had fraudulently and purposely obtained the permission from the competent authority for transfer under Section 49 of the CNT Act. 9. The learned counsel submits that when the proceeding under Section 71-A of the CNT Act was initiated, a writ petition was filed before this Court being C.W.J.C. No. 1263 of 1987 (R) on the point of jurisdiction and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 08.09.1987 stating that the petitioner should file the show cause and will be at liberty to question the jurisdiction. Consequently, the father of the petitioners submitted his show-cause before the SDO, Chaibasa, who, without conducting any on the spot enquiry and solely on the basis of the alleged admission of the petitioners, held that the property was being utilized for a purpose other than the purpose for which the transfer was permitted and also recorded that the transfer itself had been obtained fraudulently and, accordingly, passed the order for restoration of the land vide order dated 11.04.1988 in SAR Case No. 01/1987–88. 10. Against the order dated 11.04.1988 in SAR Case No. 01/1987–88, the father of the petitioners filed an appeal being S.A.R. Appeal No. 06/1988-89 before the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum West and the appellate authority rejected the appeal vide order dated 10.12.1991, against which revision was also filed before the Divisional Commissioner, 2026:JHHC:3152 5 which was numbered as Singhbhum Revenue Revision No. 157/1991, wherein the revisional authority held that the proceeding under Section 71-A of the CNT Act was not applicable and the remedy was available under Section 49(5) of the CNT Act and reference was made to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench) in the case of Sri Rajendra Nath Kapoor vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in [1990 BLT (Rep. 352)]. 11. The learned counsel submits that this order of the revisional authority was challenged by the original raiyats before this Court in writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 4921 of 2001 on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the raiyats and this Court vide order dated 20.03.2003 had set-aside the order passed by the revisional authority and the matter was sent to the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi with a direction to pass a reasoned order within stipulated time. 12. Thereafter, the matter was heard in Revenue Revision No. 157/1991 by the Commissioner, South Chhota Nagpur Division and the authority considered the objection with regard to jurisdiction and entered into the legality and validity of the permission granted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner for transfer of the property and held that the transfer itself was null and void as the authority granting permission to transfer was not competent to grant the permission and the revisional authority held that the transfer made under Section 49 was itself bad in law. 13. The learned counsel has referred to the notification as contained in Annexure-8 and 8/1 and has also referred to order passed in the present case, which is dated 09.03.2022. In the said order, it has been recorded as under: - “………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………… Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that Annexure-8 to the writ petition, is the notification issued by State of Bihar vide S.O. 621, dated 12th May, 1981, published in Bihar 2026:JHHC:3152 6 Gazette, Extraordinary No.565, dated May 12, 1981, whereby under sub-clause (a) of clause (iii) of Section 3 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (Bengal Act 6 of 1908), the Governor of Bihar is pleased to empower Shri Anil Kumar, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum District to discharge the powers and functions of Deputy Commissioner under Sections 46, 47, 71-KA and 71-KH of the said Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that even if the transfer, which has been passed by competent authority under Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act is to be challenged, the provisions of 71A of the C.N.T. Act is not the appropriate provision, rather the same is under Section 49(5) of the C.N.T. Act, as such, the impugned order passed by all the three Courts are bad in law. Learned counsel for the respondents / State, Mr. P. C. Roy, S. C. (L&C)-I has submitted that this Court has categorically directed the State in terms of order dated 21.09.2021 and 28.09.2021 to file an affidavit stating that whether Shri Anil Kumar, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum (W), District has been notified and empowered to discharge the powers and functions of Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum, under Sections 46, 47-71-KA and 71-KH of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 by the Government or not? This query has already been answered in the counter affidavit dated 18.03.2021 sworn by one Gopi Oraon, S/o Late Bande Oraon the then Circle Officer, Chaibasa stating in paragraphs-3, 4 annexing the copy of the notification dated 05.10.1985 and another notification contained in S.O. 621, dated 12th May, 1981, which has been brought on record as Annexure-A series to the counter affidavit, which has already been filed by the petitioners as Annxure-8, as such, the person, who has passed an order under Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act was authorised in view of the notification issued by the Governor of Bihar of the relevant time. …………………………………………………………………………” 14. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the competence of the authority, who had granted permission under Section 49, has been set at rest by virtue of the said order which was passed on the basis of the counter-affidavit filed by the State pursuant to order dated 21.09.2021 and 28.09.2021and 28.09.2021. 2026:JHHC:3152 7 15. The learned counsel has also submitted that otherwise also, the legality and validity of the permission granted under Section 49 can be examined only in terms of Section 49(5) of the CNT Act and the proceeding initiated under Section 71-A challenging the permission to transfer is itself not maintainable. 16. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in [1990 BLT (Rep. 352)] in the case of Sri Rajendra Nath Kapoor vs. State of Bihar & Others which has also been followed in the judgment reported in 2001 (2) Jhr CR 127 (Jhr.). 17. Paragraph 13 of the judgment reported in 1990 BLT (Rep. 352) (supra) is quoted as under: - “13. Regulation 1 of 1969 came into force in February, 1969 and section 49 (5) was introduced in 1976. It must be presumed that the Legislature knew that section 71A had been introduced in 1969 empowering the Deputy Commissioner to pass order under certain circumstances, yet the Legislature inserted sub-section (5) in section 49 for the first time in 1976. This indicates that the scope of section 71A and 49 (5) are completely different. The former speaks about fraud on the transferor-raiyat whereas the latter speaks about misrepresentation or fraud on the Deputy Commissioner. In section 49 (5) the reference is to sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 49 whereas in section 71A, section 46 has been specifically mentioned. It is a general rule of interpretation of statutes that special provision will override the general provision. When there is specific provision for annulling transfer made with consent of the Deputy Commissioner, recourse must be had to that and an application under the general provision, i.e. under section 71A of the Act is barred. Moreover, as noticed, above the forum is also different.” 18. Paragraph 14 of the judgment reported in [2001 (2) Jhr CR 127 (Jhr.) (supra) is quoted as under: - “14. Admittedly in the instant cases before transfer was effected in the years 1936 and 1959, due permission was accorded by the Deputy Commissioner in permission case No. 7R 8(2) of 1936-37 and case No. 34R (2) of 1959-60. Copies of the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner according permission have been annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ application. In such 2026:JHHC:3152 8 circumstance, I am of the opinion that such transfer can be annulled only by the State Government under sub-section (5) of Section 49 of the said Act if an application to that effect is made within 12 years, from the date of such transfer and if the State Government finds that consent of the Deputy Commissioner was obtained in contravention of sub-sections (1) and (2) by misrepresentation or fraud.” 19. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the challenge by the original raiyats was in connection with fraudulently obtaining permission for transfer and such challenge to permission can be considered only the competent authority in terms of Section 49(5) of the CNT Act and therefore the entire proceeding initiated under Section 71-A of the CNT Act is without jurisdiction and is fit to be set-aside. Arguments of the respondents 20. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that there was enough material on record to prove that the petitioners had constructed a house or building over the property and had violated the permission granted under Section 49 of the CNT Act and therefore the proceeding under Section 71-A of the CNT Act seeking restoration of land obtained by playing fraud was maintainable. 21. The learned counsel has also submitted that as per the counter- affidavit, a Gul Factory was established in the name and style of Suman Gul Factory, manufacturing tobacco product, which was also in violation of the terms and conditions of the transfer deed. 22. The learned counsel submits that the Deputy Commissioner as well as the raiyats, both have the jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioners under Sections 49(5) as well as 71-A of the CNT Act. He has also submitted that under Section 49(5) of the CNT Act, there is a limitation of 12 years from the date of transfer and the original raiyats had initiated the proceeding within 12 years and if this Court chooses to interfere on the point of jurisdiction, the right to take steps in terms of Section 49(5) of the CNT Act may be kept intact. 2026:JHHC:3152 9 Findings of this Court 23. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the sequence of events as narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not in dispute. Further, the transfer deed, in connection with which there is allegation of violation of terms and conditions, has also not been placed on record. 24. However, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that the transfer was made after getting permission under Section 49 of the CNT Act for the purpose of manufacture of tiles by observing that this would also provide employment to 15–20 persons and the terms and conditions of the deed was also approved by the Additional Deputy Commissioner. 25. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Circle Officer stating that the Additional Deputy Commissioner was competent to grant sanction which has been taken note of by this Court while passing the order dated 09.03.2022. However, no specific finding has been recorded in the said order. 26. This Court also finds that the allegation which was levelled by the original raiyats was that the permission to transfer under Section 49 of the CNT Act was itself fraudulently obtained and the original raiyats had initiated the proceeding under Section 71-A of the CNT Act within a period of 12 years from the date of transfer. The petition was entertained and the petitioners have been contesting the point of jurisdiction right from the stage of issuance of notice by filing writ petition but the High court did not quash the notice, and at the same time, kept the point of jurisdiction open and subject to the decision of the authority and the matter has ultimately travelled before this Court and this writ petition remained pending after being admitted for final hearing and the point of jurisdiction is still involved in this case as to whether the proceeding under section 71A of the CNT Act was at all applicable . 2026:JHHC:3152 10 27. This Court finds that in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in [1990 BLT (Rep. 352)] (supra), it has been held that the scope of Section 71-A and 49(5) of the CNT Act are completely different. The former speaks about fraud on the transferor raiyat whereas the latter speaks about misrepresentation or fraud on the Deputy Commissioner. The Hon’ble Court has also held that in Section 49(5), the reference is to sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 49, whereas in Section 71-A, Section 46 has been specifically mentioned and that the general rule of interpretation of statute is that special provision will override the general provision. The Hon’ble Court ultimately held that when there is specific provision for annulling transfer made with consent of the Deputy Commissioner, recourse must be had to that and an application under the general provision i.e. under Section 71-A of the Act is barred and admittedly the forum under Section 49(5) and 71-A are also different. 28. This Court finds that in the present case, the allegation has been levelled that the permission to transfer itself was fraudulently obtained and Section 49(5) provides specific remedy of cancellation of permission to transfer where the State Government, either on its own motion or an application filed by the raiyat, can initiate a proceeding and conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate order. If the permission has been fraudulently obtained as alleged, then certainly the power for annulment of transfer and also annulment of the permission of transfer was with the competent authority in terms of Section 49(5) of the CNT Act. 29. This Court also finds that the counter-affidavit which has been filed in the present case with respect to the power of the Additional Deputy Commissioner to grant permission, the same has been sworn by the respondent no. 5, who is an authority much lower in rank and therefore this Court is not inclined to give any conclusive finding with respect to the point of jurisdiction of Additional Deputy Commissioner to grant permission. Otherwise also, in absence of jurisdiction to grant permission to transfer in terms of section 49, the proceeding under Section 49(5) was 2026:JHHC:3152 11 maintainable. As of now and on the basis of materials on record, it cannot be said that the Additional Deputy Commissioner was not empowered to grant permission for transfer under section 49 of the CNT Act. 30. Considering the nature of allegation, this Court is of the view that when the allegation was that the permission to transfer was fraudulently obtained under section 49 of the CNT Act, the authority mentioned under section 49(5) has the power and authority to cancel the permission and also the transfer. However, the proceeding under Section 71-A of the CNT Act seeking restoration of land was not at all maintainable and the proceedings under section 71 A of the CNT Act were wholly without jurisdiction. On the point of jurisdiction, the order passed by the SAR Officer under section 71A of the CNT Act , order of appellate authority as well as the impugned order passed by the revisional authority affirming order passed under section 71A of the CNT Act are hereby set-aside. 31. However, the fact remains that the proceeding was pending before one or the other authority and the point of jurisdiction was raised and contested right from the beginning since the very initiation of proceeding under section 71 A of the CNT Act way back in the year 1987-88 . The claim for restoration of land under section 71 A of the CNT Act was made within a period of 12 years from the date of transfer and it was certainly open to the private respondent to invoke section 49(5) of the CNT Act seeking annulment of permission to transfer and also seeking annulment of the transfer itself. The writ petition was also admitted vide order dated 31.08.2016. 32. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is further observed that if the respondents choose to initiate a proceeding under Section 49(5) of the CNT Act, they may do so in accordance with law and if any observation has been made in the impugned orders/orders passed by the authorities under section 71 A of the C.N.T Act that will not prejudice the either party. 2026:JHHC:3152 12 33. This Court is of the considered view that the time which has been consumed during the litigation right from the year 1987-88 till date is required to be considered for exclusion while computing the period of limitation prescribed under section 49(5) of the C.N.T. Act. The impugned orders passed in favour of the concerned respondent have been set-aside only on the point of jurisdiction of the authority entertaining the petition under section 71A of the CNT Act and therefore it has to be left open upon the concerned respondent to avail remedy as per law. 34. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 35. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 05.02.2026 Mukul/- Uploaded On: