2026:JHHC:11543 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2669 of 2026 ----- Shambhu Purti, aged about 42 years, Son of late Laka Purti, Residence of village- Bhagat Singh Chowk Khunti, P.O.+P.S.- Khunti, District- Khunti, Jharkhand. ....Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Registration, Revenue and Land reforms, Government of Jharkhand at Project Building Dhurwa, P.Ο. & P.S. Dhurwa, District-Ranchi. 2. The Deputy Commissioner at Khunti, P.O. & P.S.-Khunti, District-Khunti, Jharkhand. 3. The Sub- Division Officer, at Khunti, P.O. & P.S.- Khunti, District- Khunti, Jharkhand. 4. The Circle Officer at Khunti, P.O. & P.S.-Khunti, District-Khunti, Jharkhand 5. The Director, Saint Anna Convent at Torpa Road, Khunti, P.O + P.S- Khunti, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Respondent(s). ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Vishwakarma, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Kumar, AC to Sr. S.C-I …...... 02/20.04.2026: By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- i. For issuance of an appropriate Writ/ writs, order/ orders , direction/ Directions upon the respondents to set-aside the order dated 07.09.2006 bearing SAR No. 59/2003-2004 (Annexure-2) passed by The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, at Khunti, whereby and where under the petition of the petitioner u/s 71A of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act 1908 has been dismissed on the points of Limitation and Res-judicate, the order which is illegal and arbitrary as the Respondents has not followed the section 46 and 49 of the CNT Act, which has been prohibited the transfer of any land while u/s 71 of CNT act the limitation act doesn't apply if transfer of property is in violation of CNT act. As the legislation for protection of Tribal land against illegal transfer, and prohibited under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, the sub- divisional magistrate has not applied the judicial mind before passing the aforesaid order, hence this writ Petition is being filed. Now the matter is pending before the court of learned sub-divisional magistrate at, Khunti. ii. For the issuance an order or orders, direction or directions for Inoperative of the order dated 07.09.2006 which has been passed illegally, irregularity and arbitrary passed in the favor of Respondent No. 4. 2026:JHHC:11543 2. The fact of the case is that land in Mauja Khunti, Khata No. 45, Plot No. 1605, measuring 1.18 acres recorded in the name of the petitioner’s ancestors- Jaura Munda, Budhwa Munda, and Budhan Munda. The petitioner, claiming to be their legal heir, filed a case under Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act to recover the land. It is the case of the respondent-Saint Anna Convent that the land was surrendered in 1931 and later sold in 1969 to them. The SAR Case No. 59/2003–2004 filed by the petitioner, was dismissed on the grounds of delay and that the matter had earlier already been decided, i.e, res judicata. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land belongs to his ancestors, as shown in the official records i.e Khatiyan. He further submits that the claim of surrender in 1931 and sale in 1969 is false and based on wrong or fake documents. If the land was really surrendered, the official records should have been changed, but they still reflects his ancestors’ names. He also submits that without proper permission as per section 46 and 49 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, transfer of tribal land is not allowed. The order passed by the lower Court is unjust and violates protections granted to tribal landholders; hence, it should be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the land was surrendered by the petitioner’s ancestors in 1931, so they no longer own it. He further submits that the land was legally sold in 1969 through a registered sale deed to the respondent-Saint Anna Convent. The respondent-Saint Anna Convent has been in possession of the land for a long time. He further submitted that the similar matter has already been decided earlier in SAR Appeal No.108 R 15/1974-75 in favour of respondent-Saint Anna Convent, so it cannot be reopened in view of the principles of res judicata. Thus, lower Court rightly dismissed the case of the petitioner. 5. After hearing both the parties and upon perusal of the records, I find that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.09.2006 passed in SAR Case No. 59/2003–2004, mainly on the ground that 2026:JHHC:11543 the land is recorded in the name of his ancestors in the Khatiyan. However, the record shows that the respondent-Saint Anna Convent is in long-standing possession of the land on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 17.12.1969. Further, it appears that similar matter has already been decided in SAR Appeal No.108 R 15/1974-75 in favour of respondent-Saint Anna Convent. 6. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case that the earlier order was illegal or wrong. Further, the petitioner has also not produced any documentary evidence to show that the sale or surrender of land was fake or illegal. The SAR Court has rightly considered the issues of delay and earlier decision in SAR Appeal No.108 R 15/1974-75. It is a settled principle of law that matters which have already been adjudicated upon by a competent Court cannot be re-opened or re-challenged in subsequent proceedings between the same parties. Since the issue in question has already attained finality, it is barred from being re-litigated. Thus, I find no merit in this case. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 20.04.2026 Tanuj/CP-2 Uploaded on 15.05.2026