( 2026:JHHC:18888 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 210 of 2009 1. Harihar Sahu, son of late Fakira Sahu 2. Smt. Gayatri Devi, wife of Sri Harihar Sahu Both residents of village Hesal, Police Station Sukhdeo Nagar, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) ...... … Petitioners Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. Commissioner, South C.N. Division, Ranchi, P.O. and District-Ranchi 3. Additional Collector, Ranchi, P.O. and District-Ranchi 4. Special Officer, Scheduled Areas Regulation, Ranchi P.O. and District- Ranchi (Jharkhand) 5. Bandhan Oraon, son of late Sanicharwa Oraon, resident of village Hesal, P.O. Hehal, Police Station Sukhdeo Nagar, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) .…. … Respondents -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners :Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate For the Resp-State :Ms. Aditee Dongrawat, A.C. to G.P.-V For the Resp. No. 5 : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate 10/ 29.06.2026: Heard Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Aditee Dongrawat, learned counsel for the respondent-State and Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. 2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 19.06.2008 passed by the Special Officer, Scheduled Areas Regulation, Ranchi in S.A.R. Case No. 497 of 2005-06 contained in Annexure-9 whereby he has passed order for restoration of 4 kathas of land being portion of Revisional Survey Plot No. 644 of Khata No. 74 along with building situated at village Hesal, Police Station Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi in favour of respondent no. 5. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 3.10.2008 passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in S.A.R. Appeal No. 48 R-15 of 2008-09 whereby he has been pleased to dismiss the said appeal filed by the ( 2026:JHHC:18888 ) 2 petitioner No. 1 contained in Annexure-10. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 17.11.2008 passed by the Commissioner, South Chhota Nagpur Division, Ranchi, in Ranchi S.A.R. Revision No.158 of 2008 dismissing the Revision filed by the Petitioner no. 1 contained in Annexure-11. 3. Mr. Sandeep Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent no. 5 filed an application under Section 71A of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act against the petitioner No. 1 as well as against other persons claiming restoration of 4 Kathas of land against the petitioner No. 1 being portion of Revisional Survey Plot No. 644 of Khata No. 74 situated at Village-Hesal, Police Station-Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi. He further submits that in the said application allegation was made that transfer took place 25 years back by way of fraudulent method. He next submits that S.A.R. Case No. 497 of 2005-06 was registered. He further submits that land of Revisional Survey Plot No. 644 of Khata No. 74 situated at village Hesal, Police Station Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi have been recorded in the Revisional Survey Record of Right in the names of Chengre Oraon and Kaila Oraon, both sons of Karma Oraon. He submits that there was amicable oral partition between the said recorded raiyat much before the Revisional Survey and separate possession of each of them was recorded in accordance with amicable oral partition in the remarks column of the Revisional Survey Record of Right and Kaila Oraon was shown in exclusive possession of the land bearing Plot No. 644 of Khata No. 74 of the said village. He next submits that the land is tand and barren and uncultivable land and the erstwhile raiyat Kaila Oraon being not in a position to pay rent with respect to the land to the ex. landlord and being unable to cultivate the land, voluntarily surrender the ( 2026:JHHC:18888 ) 3 same to the ex. landlord on 26th of December, 1939 and the then land lord came into possession and the lands so surrendered became the bakast land of the then landlord Zamindar Sarju Singh. He further also submits that after the death of Zamindar Sarju Singh his eldest son Jamadar Jagdishwar Dayal Singh of village Tender stepped into the shoes of his father and inherited the properties left by his deceased father including the land of Khata No. 74, Plot No. 644 of the said village and came into possession of the same. He next submits that said Jagdishwar Dayal Singh got the land converted into homestead and constructed kutcha house consisting of rooms and verandah. He also submits that on the eve of vesting of the Estate under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, return was filed by the then landlord Zamindar Jagdishwar Dayal Singh and the land measuring 89 decimals being Revisional Survey Plot No. 644 of Khata No. 74 of the said village was shown to have been surrendered by Kaila Oraon on 26.12.1959 and to buttress this argument he refers to annexure-2 which is certified copy of return of Jamindari Case No. 276/1955-56. He also submits that said Jagdishwar Dayal Singh also paid Choukidari Tax with respect to the said land and house and Jagdishwar Dayal Singh on account of legal necessity sold 16 kathas 9 chhataks 10 square feet of chhaparbandi land being portion of Revisional Survey Plot No. 644 of Khata No. 74 of the said village to Sri Suresh Chandra Singh, by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 24.3.1971 for a valuable consideration and put him in possession of the same and he came into possession since the date of purchase and subsequently sold entire land acquired by him to different persons through registered deeds of sale for the year 1971-72 and the respective purchasers are coming in possession of their respective lands purchased by them and have constructed ( 2026:JHHC:18888 ) 4 residential building over their respective lands and are residing there with their family members and have also got their names mutated and are paying rent and taxes in their names. He also submits that the said Jagdishwar Dayal Singh on account of legal necessity sold 3 kathas 1 chhatak of chhaparbandi land being portion of Revisional Survey Plot No. 644 of sub-plot No.644/5 of Khata No. 74 of the said village to Smt. Gayetri Devi, Petitioner No. 2 by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 8.1.1979 for a valuable consideration and put her in possession of the same and she is in peaceful possession since the date of purchase. He submits that the said sale deed is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. He further submits that petitioner no. 2 after purchase of the said land demolished the old house and other structures and got the plan sanctioned by the Ranchi Regional Development Authority for construction of residential building and constructed a new house. He submits that sanction plan is annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. He next submits that petitioner no.2 also got her name mutated in the office of the State as well as in Ranchi Municipal Corporation being Holding No.774/A41 within new Ward No. IV and is regularly paying rent and taxes in her name contained in annexure-7. He further submits that one of the neighbours of the petitioners filed application under the Right to Information Act seeking information whether jamabandi with respect to lands bearing Revisional Survey Plot No. 644 of Khata No. 74 of the said village was opened and in whose name the same was opened and information was given that Jamabandi was originally standing in the name of Jagdishwar Dayal Singh and presently in the Jamabandi the name of Smt. Gayatri Devi finds place. 4. In view of above submissions, he submits that petitioner No. 2 is ( 2026:JHHC:18888 ) 5 the absolute owner of 3 kathas 25 1 chhatak of chhaparbandi land being portion of Revisional Survey Plot No. 644 of Khata No. 74 corresponding to Municipal holding No. 774/A41 within new Ward No. IV of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation situated at Mohalla Hesal in the town of Ranchi, Police Station Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi. He submits that pursuant to notice the petitioner No. 1 appeared before the Special Officer, Scheduled Areas Regulation, Ranchi however, the contention of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that there is no chit of paper to suggest that said land was surrendered in the year, 1939. He further submits that the appellate authority also dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 03.10.2008 in SAR Appeal No. 48 R15 of 2008-09 which was challenged before the Revisional Authority being SAR Revision No. 158 of 2008 which was also dismissed by judgment dated 17.11.2008. He next submits that the surrender was made in the year, 1939 whereas restoration case has been field in the year, 2005. He submits in that view of the matter 64 years have already passed from the date of surrender. He next submits that thereafter land has been transferred twice and the petitioner no.2 has purchased the land in the year, 1979 thereafter the petitioner is coming into possession. He submits that inspite of Annexure- 2 which is certified copy of return, the limitation aspect has been wrongly decided by the learned forums. On the point of limitation, he relied the judgment in the case of “Fulchand Munda Vs. State of Bihar and others” reported in 2008 (2) JCR 1 (SC). He next submits that so far as fraudulent aspect is concerned, that was set at rest in the case of Situ Sahu and others V. The State of Jharkhand and others” reported in AIR 2004 SC 4918. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the ( 2026:JHHC:18888 ) 6 prayer and submits that the documents have not been filed before the learned courts and in view of that the learned courts have rightly passed the order. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 submits that the authorities have held that the documents have not been filed and the said land was not surrendered in the year, 1939 and in view of that the orders have been correctly passed by the authorities. He next submits that petitioners have lost the case before the three forums and in view of that this writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 7. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has gone through the materials on record including the annexures contained in the writ petition. The Annexure-2 is the document of Jamindari Case No. 276/1955-56 that is certified copy of return wherein it has been clearly disclosed that Kailla Oraon who was raiyat has surrendered the said land on 26.12.1939 as he was not able to cultivate the same and thereafter Sarju Dayal Singh came into possession and thereafter his son Jagdishwar Dayal Singh has acquired the possession in the year, 1942. In the said document it has been disclosed that said Jagdishwar Dayal Singh has also recorded his name in the year, 1942. This document has been considered by the appellate authority in SAR Appeal No. 48 R15 of 2008-09. Thus, the finding of the learned Forums to the effect that no chit of paper has been brought on record to suggest about the surrender of 1939 appears to be erroneous. Thus, prima facie one of the document is there to suggest about the surrender. There may not be original surrender document but certified copy of said document is there. The said surrender is of the year, 1939 wherein SAR Case has been instituted in the year, 2005 after 64 years ( 2026:JHHC:18888 ) 7 of first surrender, after 1939 surrender and thereafter, the then land lord Sarju Dayal Singh came into possession and thereafter his son Jagdishwar Dayal Singh came into possession in the year 1942. The said Jagdishwar Dayal Singh has further transferred the land to petitioner no.2 and other persons. The petitioner no.2 has purchased the said land in the year, 1979 by way of registered sale deed dated 08.01.1979 contained in annexure-4 and thereafter she got her name mutated in the office of Circle Officer and was paying the rent and other taxes in view of annexure 5 series. These documents clearly suggest that land has been acquired by the petitioner no.2 and it has been pointed out that now she has constructed house and is residing along with her family members in the said house. The sanction plan is contained in Annexure-5. 8. The law with regard to limitation issue relating to Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act is now well settled. It has been decided that atleast if the cases are being filed after 30 years, it will be barred by the law of limitation and this aspect has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Fulchand Munda (supra) as well as in the case of “Situ Sahu (supra). 9. In the case of Situ Sahu (supra) fraudulent aspect has also been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The relevant paragraph of which is given below:- “We will assume that the surrender of tenancy on 7.2.1938 and the settlement of the lands on the present appellant on 25.2.1938 were in quick succession and could be viewed as parts of the same transaction within the meaning of the term 'transfer' as contemplated by the Act. Nonetheless, it has not been established before us that the transfer was contrary to any other provisions of the Act. We shall now examine the last argument of Shri Narasimha that the transfer was fraudulent. Even on this, we are afraid that the appellants are entitled to succeed. We need not go into the details of the transaction for we may even assume that the transfer was fraudulent. Even then, as held in Ibrahimpatnam (supra), the power under Section 71A could have been exercised only within a reasonable time. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, we are not satisfied that the Special officer exercised his powers under Section 71A within a reasonable period of time. The lapse ( 2026:JHHC:18888 ) 8 of 40 years is certainly not a reasonable time for exercise of power, even if it is not hedged in by a period of limitation. We derive support to our view from the observations made by this Court in Jai Mangal Oraon case (supra) which was also a case which arose under the very same provision of law. There this Court took the view that Section 46(4)(a), which envisaged a prior sanction of the Deputy Commissioner before effecting the transfer in any of the modes stated therein, was introduced only in the year 1947 (with effect from 5.1.1948) and no such provision existed during the relevant point of time when the surrender was made in that case (15.1.1942). Obviously, therefore, no such provision existed in 1938, and the same reasoning applies.” 10. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis the Court comes to the conclusion that the learned courts have erred in passing the judgments in S.A.R. Case No. 497 of 2005-0, in S.A.R. Appeal No. 48 R-15 of 2008-09 in S.A.R. Revision No.158 of 2008. The annexure-2 is document which suggests that surrender was there and further transactions have taken place as discussed hereinabove. 11. Accordingly, the order dated 19.06.2008 passed by the Special Officer, Scheduled Areas Regulation, Ranchi in S.A.R. Case No. 497 of 2005-06, the order dated 3.10.2008 passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in S.A.R. Appeal No. 48 R-15 of 2008-09 and the order dated 17.11.2008 passed by the Commissioner, South Chhota Nagpur Division, Ranchi, in Ranchi S.A.R. Revision No.158 of 2008 are set aside. 12. This writ petition is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. Dt.29.06.2026 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/- A.F.R.