( 2026:JHHC:5104 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 4301 of 2003 ------ 1. Neha Toppo, Aged about 31 years, Daughter of Sobhan Uraon, Resident of Cantonment (Korrah) Town Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S.- Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 2. Robin Kujur, Aged about 48 years Son of Late Mohan Uraon, Resident of Cantonment (Korrah) Town Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 3. Roshan Kujur, aged about 32 years, Son of Lal Mohan Uraon, Resident of Cantonment (Korrah) Town Hazaribagh, District-Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 4. Ram Chandra Kujur, Son of Late Baso Uraon, Resident of Cantonment (Korrah) Town Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S.- Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 5. Subhash Kujur, Son of Late Vasudev Oraon, Resident of 816 Korra, P.O.- Korra, P.S.- Sadar, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 6. Sanjay Kujur, Son of Late Chhote Lal Kujur, Resident of Cantonment (Korrah) Town Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S.- Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 7. Jaswanti Kachhap, Wife of Late Chhote Lal Kujur, Resident of Cantonment (Korrah) Town Hazaribagh, P.O.&P.S.- Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand 8. Mahendra Kujur, aged about 52 years, Son of Late Jaipal Uraon, Resident of Cantonment (Korrah) Town Hazaribagh, P.O.& P.S.- Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 9. Bijay Uraon, Son of Late Dina Nath Uraon, Resident of Cantonment (Korrah) Town Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S.- Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 10. Jhaman Uraon, Son of Late Dina Nath Uraon, Resident of Cantonment (Korrah) Town Hazaribagh, P.O.& P.S.- Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 11. Parmeshwar Uraon, Son of Late Jagdish Uraon and Grand Son of Late Jiten Uraon, Resident of Cantonment (Korrah) Town Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S.- Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 12. Amar Uraon, Son of Late Jagdish Uraon and Grand Son of Late Jiten Uraon, Resident of Cantonment (Korrah) Town Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S.- Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 13. Kandari Devi, Wife of Jagdish Uraon, Resident of Cantonment (Korrah) Town Hazaribagh, P.O.&P.S.-Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. … … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. Jharkhand. 4. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh Sadar, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. ( 2026:JHHC:5104 ) 2 5. Latu Gope Son of Kartik Gope, resident of Mohalla Bara Razar, Hazaribagh, P.O.& P.S.- Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. (deleted vide order dated 24.03.2025) 5.(a) Ram Naresh Gope, Son of Late Latu Gope, resident of Mohalla – Bara Bazar, P.O. & P.S. -Hazaribagh, District – Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 5.(b) Raj Kumar Gope Son of Late Mahesh Gope, resident of Bara Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- Sadar, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. 5.(c) Awadh Kishore Yadav son of Late Mahesh Gope resident of Bara Bazar, P.O. & P.S.- Sadar, District- Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. … … Respondents CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY --- For the Appellants : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Deo, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Vishal Kumar Tiwary, Advocate : Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Arpit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Shalini Shahdeo, : A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-I --- 21/18.02.2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “That, in the instant writ petition, the petitioner prays for following relief by issuance of appropriate Writ/ Rule/ Order/ Directions to quash the order dated 08.09.2002 (Annexure-8) passed by the respondent No. 2 in Hazaribagh Land restoration Revision No. 66/97 whereby respondent No. 2 has illegally allowed the revision on remand and set aside order dated 22.07.1975 passed by the respondent No. 4 in Land restoration case No. 550/1975 and all subsequent order passed up to the court of Member Board of Revenue whereby the ancestral lands of the petitioners appertaining to Khata No. 163, Plot No. 310, area 1.15 acres and Khata No. 142 Plot No. 311 area 1.16 acres both situated in Village Cantonment, P.S. and District- Hazaribagh have been restored to the petitioners under section 46 (4A) C.N.T. Act.” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the present proceeding has a long history and he has straightway referred to Annexure-5 which is an order passed in CWJC No. 229 of 1982. The learned counsel submits that the said writ petition was filed by the respondents herein and the subject matter of consideration was the exercise of power by the authority under Section 46(4A) of ( 2026:JHHC:5104 ) 3 Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, whereby the land in question was directed to be restored to the respondent nos. 3 to 9 of the said case who are the petitioners before this court. The learned counsel submits that the matter was remanded to the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribgh to take a fresh decision. 4. A fresh decision has been taken vide Annexure-8 dated 08.09.2002 whereby the revision was allowed and the order of restoration was set aside. He submits that the order of restoration has been set aside inter alia on the ground that the provision of Section 46 and Section 71 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act did not apply to Municipal area. He has also submitted that the order was modified by observing that the property was in village cantonment and a certificate to that effect was issued by the Vice Chairman, Hazaribagh Municipality. 5. The learned counsel submits that the cantonment as well as municipal area were brought within the purview of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act by virtue of Chotanagpur Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1982 and therefore all the proceedings which were pending on coming into force of the aforesaid amendment act were required to be governed by the provision of the amended act and therefore the provision of Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act was still applicable in the municipal area or cantonment area. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the predecessor in interest of the petitioners had relinquished their right, with respect to the property involved in this case by a registered relinquishment deed (Bazidawa) as back as in the year 1962 and then a title suit was also filed between the parties numbered as Title Suit No. 1081 of 1966 which ended in a compromise in favour of the respondents as back as on 29.04.1967. He has submitted that as per the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, as it stood on 11th November, 1908, the area falling in municipality constituted under Bihar Municipal Act, 1984 were excluded from the applicability of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. Thereafter there was an amendment in the year 1920 named as the Chotanagpur Tenancy (Amendment) Act, ( 2026:JHHC:5104 ) 4 1920 and area falling under cantonment was also excluded and such exclusion continued till the ordinance sometimes in the year 1979 followed by the Chotanagpur Tenancy(Amendment) Act, 1982. He has submitted that by virtue of the said amendment, for the first time the municipal area as well as cantonment area were included within the purview of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. The learned counsel submits that the amendment act does not have any retrospective effect. The learned counsel has submitted that much prior to coming into force of Chotanagpur Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1982 or its ordinance in the year 1979, rights of the parties stood crystallized, not only by way of registered Bazidawa- relinquishment deed, of the year 1962 and but also in compromise decree in Title Suit No. 1081 of 1966. He has submitted that there is no allegation of any fraudulent transaction in connection with the registered relinquishment deed, nor there is any allegation of collusion in connection with compromise in the title suit. He has submitted that otherwise also, in case of any collusion in connection with title suit, the concerned party has a remedy under civil court. The learned counsel submits that there could be two types of cantonment; one is falling within the municipal area and the other is falling outside the municipal area and it was already recorded in the submission in the part of the impugned order itself that the part of the property was falling in cantonment area and it was just an error of record which was rectified by the learned Commissioner while stating that the property falls in village cantonment. He submits that the fact that the property falls in village cantonment is not in dispute even in the writ petition and for that purpose he has referred to paragraph 5 of the writ petition and has stated that the petitioners have themselves stated that the property falls in village cantonment. 7. The learned counsel submits that otherwise also under the provisions of Section 46(A) of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, there is a provision of limitation of 12 years and the proceeding in the instant case was initiated much after expiry of the period of limitation. The petitions were dispossessed way back on 21.04.1962 as they have executed a deed of relinquishment in favour of the private respondents ( 2026:JHHC:5104 ) 5 and the petition seeking restoration under Section 46 was filed vide proceeding case No. 540 of 1975, though it has been wrongly recorded in the impugned order as Restoration Proceeding Case No. 540 of 1974. This aspect of the matter that the proceeding was initiated vide Restoration Proceeding Case No. 540 of 1975 and that there is an error in the recording in the impugned order is not in dispute even by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners during the course of hearing. 8. The learned counsel submits that even if it is assumed for a moment that the CNT Act was applicable though not admitting, otherwise also the proceeding was barred by limitation. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not in dispute, based on the materials available on record and during the course of arguments, that the property was falling in village cantonment. It is further not in dispute that the proceeding for restoration of land was initiated vide Restoration Proceeding Case No. 540 of 1975. It is also not in dispute that a registered deed of relinquishment was executed as back as in the year 1962 in favour of the private respondent by the predecessor in interest of the petitioners and further it is also not in dispute that the same was subject matter of consideration even in Title Suit No. 1081 of 1966 which ultimately ended in a compromise on 29.04.1967. 10. The provisions of Section 1(2) of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act as published in Calcutta Gazette on 11th November, 1908 reveals that the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act was not applicable to municipality, constituted under Bengal Municipality Act, 1894. The provision is Quoted as under:- 1. Short title and extent-(1) This Act may be called the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. (2) It extends to the Chota Nagpur Division, except the district of Manbhum and except any area or part of an area which is constituted a municipality under the Bengal Municipal Act, 1984 (Ben. Act III of 1884) and which is specified in his behalf by notification issued by the local government:” ( 2026:JHHC:5104 ) 6 11. However, there was an amendment vide Chotanagpur Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1920 and sub section (2) was amended and after the word “1884”, the words “or which is within a cantonment” was inserted. Meaning thereby the exclusion of applicability of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act was on the municipal area as well as on cantonment area. It is further not in dispute that the position continued and sometimes in the year 1979, ordinance has come which ultimately culminated into an act namely the Chota Nagpur Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1982 and by virtue of this amendment, the act was extended to municipal area as well as cantonment area. The sub section 2 as amendment vide Chotanagpur Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1982 is quoted as under:- “ Short title and extent. - (1) This Act may be called the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. (2) It extends to [the North Chotanagpur, the South Chotanagpur and Palamau Divisions] including the areas or parts of the areas which have been constituted into a Municipality or a Notified Area Committee under the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2002 (Bihar and Orissa Act 7 of 1922) or which are within a cantonment.” 12. Perusal of the record reveals that not only the relinquishment deed dated 21.04.1962 but also the title suit which ended in a compromise on 29.04.1967 stood concluded much before the amendment made in Chotanagpur Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1982 and even the petition seeking restoration of land vide Restoration Case No. 540 of 1975 was filed prior to the said amendment. It is further not in dispute that the application for restoration was filed after the prescribed period of limitation under Section 46-A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act which was introduced some times in the year 1975-76. It is also not in dispute that the proceeding for restoration was initiated under Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, and apparently the petition was filed beyond the period of limitation of 12 years as prescribed under Section 46(4) of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. This court also finds that the learned Commissioner in the impugned order dated 08.09.2002 has clearly recorded a finding that the Act was not ( 2026:JHHC:5104 ) 7 applicable in the municipal area, however the same was rectified by observing that the property was falling in cantonment area. The fact reveals that the act was neither applicable in municipal area, nor in cantonment area. It is admitted by the petitioners also that the property is falling in cantonment area. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the learned Commissioner has rightly held that the act was not applied to the municipal area and the modification that the property is falling in cantonment area does not make any difference as the Act neither applies to municipal area nor applies to cantonment area. The fact also remains that the petition seeking restoration of land was filed much after the date of dispossession and this is supported by registered deed of relinquishment as well as by the decree of civil court. The point regarding non applicability of the provision was well taken by the present respondents before the learned Commissioner as is apparent from the recording of the submissions before the learned Commissioner itself. This court is of the considered view that the impugned order of the learned Commissioner does not suffer from any illegality or perversity calling for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. 14. Pending I.A., if any, is closed. (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Dated: 18.02.2026 Uploaded on: 23.05.2026 Binit