( 2026:JHHC:8203 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 5164 of 2008 Bishwanath Manjhi, son of Shri Sahandeo Manjhi, resident of Upper Rengni, P.O. Asanjor, P.S. Jama, District-Dumka. ……………PETITIONER -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. Commissioner, Santhal, Parganas Division, Dumka 3. Deputy Commissioner, Dumka. 4. Assistant Settlement Officer, Tasdik Camp, Lakrapahari, P.S. Jama, District-Dumka 5. Sub Divisional Officer, Dumka 6(i). Pramila Modi wife of late Arun Kumar Modi, 6(ii) Sidharth Modi, son of late Arun Kumar Modi 6(iii) Sakchi Kedia, daughter of late Arun Kumar Modi All residents of R/o 1A, City Garden, 182A and 182A/1 Buroshibtalla, Behala Kolkata, West Bengal, 700038. 7. Shrivandhan Modi, Age 50 years, son of late Kashi Prasad, resident of village Suit No. 9, 233, Acharya JC Bose Road, P.O. Lala Lajpat Rai Sarni, P.S. Bhavanipur, District-Kolkata, West Bengal ………….Respondents -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner :Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 6 and 7 : Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwary, Advocate 35/ 25.03.2026: Heard Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Prashant Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondent-State and Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwary, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6 and 7. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 31.03.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Parganas Division, Dumka in Revenue Miscellaneous Appeal No. 255/1985-86 whereby he has been pleased to reject the order of Settlement Officer, Dumka dated 09.07.1985 in M.P. No. 01/1985 upholding the order of A.S.O, Dumka dated 11.06.1982 and directed that the lands in question be recorded in the name of Gouri Shankar Modi in whose favour the lands were acquired in Land Acquisition Case No 34/1963-64. 3. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that by order dated 09.07.1985 passed in M.P. No. 01/1985 filed by Kachni Manjhain ( 2026:JHHC:8203 ) 2 (late mother of petitioner), the Settlement Officer, Dumka directed that the lands in question be recorded in favour of Kachni Manjhain holding inter alia that the said Acquisition Case no. 34/63-64 was illegal and therefore the order passed therein was itself a nullity in the eye of law. He further submits that one Marban Manjhiain, wife of late Jugal Manjhi, brother of Khelu Manjhi and Gouri Shankar Modi, late father of respondent Arun Kumar Modi, had filed an application under section 53 of Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 in the court of Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka bearing Rev. Misc. Case No. 41/1962-63 praying for acquisition of 2 bighas and 3 dhurs of lands in plot no. 1188 (old). Smt. Marban Manjhain claimed herself to be the wife of late Jugal Manjhi (brother of Khelu Manjhi). Late Jugal Manjhi as claimed to be the brother of Khelu Manjhi. He further submits that the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division Dumka forwarded the said application to Sub-divisional Officer, Dumka for enquiry and report which was numbered as Land Acquisition Case No. 34/1963-64. He also submits that the Circle Officer, Dumka reported that the lands in question was vacant and could be used for construction of building for carrying out oil pumping business. On 23.10.1963, Sub divisional Officer accorded preliminary sanction to the acquisition proceeding. He further submits that Kishan Manjhi and Kachni Manjhain however, filed objection to the said acquisition proceeding, but the same was rejected by Sub Divisional Officer on the ground that he could not review his previous order of according sanction to acquisition proceeding and thereafter the Sub Divisional Officer granted final sanction to the said acquisition proceeding vide order dated 25.3.1964. He submits that thereafter, Gouri Shankar Modi filed an application before Sub Divisional Officer praying for delivery of possession of the lands in question and the Sub Divisional Officer directed him to approach Circle Officer for obtaining delivery of possession of lands in question after fixation of rent thereof. He further submits that by order dated 11.8.1964 the said acquisition proceeding was closed and thereafter Gouri Shankar Modi filed Badar No. 26 before the Court of Assistant Settlement Officer ( 2026:JHHC:8203 ) 3 who by order dated 11.06.1982 directed for recording of his name for the lands in question on the basis of the said L.A. Case No. 34/1963-64. He also submits that being aggrieved, Kachni Manjhain filed an application before the Court of Settlement Officer, Dumka bearing MP No. 01/1985 and by order dated 9.7.1985, the Settlement Officer, Dumka allowed the application of Kachni Manjhain and set aside the order in Badar No. 26 and directed that the lands in question be recorded in favour of Kachni Manjhain. He further submits that the said order dated 09.07.1985 was challenged by Arun Kumar Modi, son of Gouri Shankar Modi before the court of learned Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 255/85-86, who had been pleased to reject the order of Settlement Officer, Dumka dated 9.7.1985 and directed that the lands in question be recorded in the name of Gouri Shankar Modi (late father of Arun Kumar Modi) in whose favour the lands were acquired in Land Acquisition Case No. 34/63-64 on the grounds that the said acquisition was never challenged before any competent court under SPT Act or any other Act, the learned Settlement Officer cannot review the order of acquisition on several grounds after a lapse of 20 years and Section 53 of the SPT Act has been declared void and unconstitutional. Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel submits that the said land was not utilized for the purpose it was acquired and in view of that the Commissioner has wrongly passed the order by saying that at the time of passing order by the Settlement Officer, Section 53 of SPT Act was not in existence and in view of that he submits that the said order may kindly be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that it is clear that Section 53 of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act is ultra vires and learned commissioner has rightly passed the said order. 5. Mr. Onkar Nath Tiwary, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6 and 7 submits that Jamabandi No. 06, Plot No. 1188 of village Mohulbana, P.S. Jama, Dumka, area 02 bigha 00 Katha 03 dhur was acquired under section 53 of S.P.T. Act by L.A. Case No. 34/63-64 in favour of the Gouri Shankar Modi by complying ( 2026:JHHC:8203 ) 4 the due process of law under the section 53 of S.P.T. Act and compensation amount was given accordingly and thereafter following all the formalities including the valuation charge, delivery of possession, rent receipt was issued in the name of Gouri Shankar Modi and rent receipt and revenue record are annexed as Annexure- B series to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.7. He further submits that the land was acquired in L.A. Case No. 34/1963-64 and due notices were issued to all the 16 Anna raiyats and learned S.D.O. Dumka passed an order and entire acquisition process was concluded following the due process of law by paying the compensation amount and that order was nowhere challenged in appeal nor revision and therefore, attained finality. He also submits that ongoing survey settlement process was initiated in Santhal Pargana and wrongly the erstwhile recorded tenant was entered into the Khanapuri stage and it was challenged in Badar No. 26 and the name of the Gouri Shankar Modi was entered into the survey settlement record by the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer and that order was challenged by the petitioner before the Settlement Court which was allowed by reviewing the S.D.O order of 1963-64 without any jurisdiction and thereafter the said order was challenged before the Divisional Commissioner in Revision Misc. Appeal No. 255/1985-86 in which Divisional Commissioner passed reasoned order holding that the order of the S.D.O was never challenged in appeal nor revision earlier and it got finality and thereafter the name of Gouri Shankar Modi was entered in the Register-II and rent receipt was issued in his favour. 6. On this ground he submits that when the order dated 25.03.1964 has attained finality there was no occasion to file said petition before the Settlement Officer by the petitioner herein and on the basis of Section 53 of SPT Act which was already held to be unconstitutional. 7. It is an admitted fact that by order dated 25.03.1964 the said land was acquired in L.A. Case No. 34/1963-64 and the said order was not challenged before any higher court and thereafter it was acquired and the compensation amount was deposited in the Treasury. The order has been passed by the Settlement Officer ( 2026:JHHC:8203 ) 5 relying on section 53 of S.P.T. Act which has already been held void in the case of “Buddinath Mishra and others v. State of Bihar” reported in AIR 1970 PAT 358. 8. The land was acquired and subsequently was settled in favour of Gouri Shankar Modi and in view of that the concerned officer was having no jurisdiction of exercising power of restoration under the Act as the said Section 53 of S.P.T Act has already been declared unconstitutional. It is well settled principle that retrospective construction to an amending Act cannot be given so as to affect past transaction transactions and vested rights which sprang up before the Amending Act came into force and the said Act has no retrospective effect. The respondent Gouri Shankar Modi has taken the settlement of the said land before the communication of amending Act and has acquired the vested right before the Amending Act came into force and in view of that the said officer was having no jurisdiction to Act under section 53 of S.P.T Act which was already been held unconstitutional. Reference may be made to the case of Sugia. Debi v. Chando Kapri, reported in 1959 BlJR 95 (DB) as well as in the case of Tarini Prasad Sharma v. Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division reported in AIR 1973 PAT 41. 09. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis the Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned order of the learned Commissioner and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending I.A, if any, stands dismissed. Dt.25.03.2026 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/A.F.R