( 2026:JHHC:12345 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4502 of 2011 1. Sikandar Sah 2. Satyadeo Sah, Both sons of Shri Chandradeo Sah, residents of Mohalla Shukla Colony, Hinoo, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi ……………Petitioners 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Commissioner, South Chhotangpur Division, Ranchi, Kutchery Road, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. and District-Ranchi 3. The Additional Collector, Ranchi, Collectorate Building, Kutchery Road, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. and District-Ranchi 4. The Special Area Regulation Officer, Ranchi, Collectorate Building, Kutchery Road, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. and District-Ranchi 5. (a) Masmat Miriam Ekka, widow of late Masih Ekka 5(b) Rakesh Ekka, son of late Masih Ekka Both residents of Mohalla Shukla Colony, Hinoo, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi 6. Adhin Ekka 7. Nirmal Ekka, Serial Nos. 6 and 7 sons of late Anand Ekka Residents of Mohalla Shukla Colony, Hinoo, P.O. and P.S. Doranda, District-Ranchi ...... … Respondents -------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioners :Mr. Pradeep Kr. Deomani, Advocate For the State : Ms. Shalini Shahdeo, A.C. to SC (L&C)-I For the Substituted Resp. No. 5(b) : Ms. Kehkashan Afsheen, Advocate For the Respondent Nos. 5(a), 6 and 7 : Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh, Advocate 20/ 28.04.2026: Heard Mr. Pradeep Kr. Deomani, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Ms. Shalini Shahdeo, learned counsel for the respondent-State, Ms. Kehkashan Afsheen, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 (b) and Mr. Sheo Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 (a), 6 and 7. 2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 09.08.2010 passed by the learned Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in SAR Revision No. 51/2010, whereby the said SAR revision was dismissed upholding the order dated 25.05.2010 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Ranchi in SAR Appeal No. 156-R- 15/2008-09. Prayer is also made for quashing the order dated 04.09.2008 passed by the learned Special Area Regulation Officer, Ranchi in SAR Case No. 372/2007-08 ( 2026:JHHC:12345 ) 2 filed by the respondent nos. 5 to 7 under section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act 1908 whereby ex parte order has been passed for eviction of the petitioners. 3. Mr. Pradeep Kr. Deomani, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had purchased 3 Kathas of land with a Kutcha house constructed over the same, appertaining to Khata No. 120, R.S. Plot No. 574, Thana No. 225, situated at Village Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi from one Hawaldar Pandit by virtue of a duly registered Deed of Sale being No. 10385 dated 18.10.1985, Book No. 1, Volume No. 54, Pages 387 to 390 of the office of the District Sub. Registrar, Ranchi. He further submits that the said Hawaldar Pandit had acquired the land of the said plot no. 574 by virtue of a decree passed by a competent court of civil jurisdiction in a title suit about 55-60 years back. He next submits that after purchasing the said land, the petitioners constructed their pucca house over the said land and have been living with their families. He then submits that the petitioners also got their names mutated with the office of the Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi vide Mutation Case No. 351/1985-86 and the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi and they have regularly been paying the rents to the government through the said offices. He further submits that on 03.01.2008, the respondent nos. 5 to 7 had filed an undated application in the SAR Office, Ranchi numbered as SAR Case No. 372/2007-08 against as many as 7 persons named therein under section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 for the restoration of 30.5 Kathas of land, appertaining to Khata No. 120, R.S. Plot Nos. 573 & 574, Thana No. 225, situated at Village Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi. He next submits that in the said SAR case, one of the opposite parties, Vakil Sahu, had appeared and filed his show-cause on 21.08.2008, but the rest of the opposite parties did not appear and on 04.09.2008, the learned SAR Officer was pleased to pass an order in the said case, rejecting the application against the opposite party, Vakil Sahu, but allowing the same against the rest of the opposite parties. He further submits that petitioners had no knowledge about the aforesaid case and the order dated 04.09.2008 passed in the same, as their correct names did not figure in ( 2026:JHHC:12345 ) 3 the application as the opposite parties and consequently no notice was ever served on them in the case. He submits that on 01.01.2009, the petitioners came across the said Vakil Sahu who told them about the case and the order, thereafter they obtained certified copy of the order dated 04.09.2008 passed in the said SAR Case No. 372/2007-08 and on the very next day i.e. 02.01.2009 and received the same on 07.01.2009. Thereafter, they arranged the other documents and preferred appeal being SAR Appeal No. 156-R-15/2008-09 in which the respondent nos. 5 to 7 have appeared and filed their show cause contending therein that the tribal land in question could not have been transferred to a non-tribal on the strength of a collusive decree. 4. He submits that so far the case of Vakil Sahu is concerned, he has appeared and the learned SAR Court has accepted his version of limitation and rejected the same against him so far Vakil Sahu is concerned. However, this aspect has not been followed so far petitioners are concerned as they have not appeared. He next submits that the learned appellate court has not considered the limitation aspect of the matter. He also submits that against the appellate order dated 25.05.2010 the petitioners herein preferred SAR Revision No. 51/2010 in the court of the learned Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi and the said revision was dismissed on the first date of hearing i.e. on 09.08.2010 by the learned Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi. He further submits that Hawaldar Pandit was in possession of the said land since 55-60 years at the time of registration of deed in favour of the petitioners. He next submits that on 18.10.1985 by the sale deed the petitioners have purchased the land in question wherein SAR Case was filed on 03.01.2008. On these grounds he submits that the writ petition may kindly be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the learned courts have rightly passed the orders as the land in question is of tribal land. On query, she fairly submits that so far limitation aspect is concerned, that point has not been considered by the learned courts. She also submits that the learned SAR ( 2026:JHHC:12345 ) 4 Court has dismissed the case against Vakil Sahu on the ground of limitation however, the case against the petitioners has been allowed by the learned SAR Court. 6. Learned counsel for the legal heirs and successors of the respondent no.5 and learned counsels for the respondent nos. 6 and 7 oppose the prayer and submit that the learned courts have rightly held that the civil suit is collusive one and in view of that there is no illegality in the impugned orders. They submit that the land in question is tribal land and as such this Court may not interfere with the impugned orders. 7. In view of above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the private respondents herein as well as respondent-State have not disputed this fact that Hawaldar Pandit has purchased the plot no. 574 by virtue of a decree passed by a competent court of civil jurisdiction in a title suit about 55-60 years back and by the sale deed dated 18.10.1985 the petitioners have purchased the land. The learned SAR Court has been pleased to dismiss the said SAR Case so far Vakil Sahu is concerned on the ground of limitation. However, the case of the petitioners has not been considered in that perspective as the petitioners have not appeared in the proceeding. It has been pointed out that the petitioners’ names were not correct in the petition filed under section 71-A of C.N.T Act and they were not served notice and this fact has not been denied by the learned counsels for the State as well as by private respondents. 8. The learned first appellate court in SAR Appeal No. 156-R-15/2008-09 held that the decree was collusive, however it has not dealt with limitation aspect of the matter. The learned Revisional Court has dismissed the SAR Revision No. 51/2010 by saying that decree obtained in the title suit was collusive. The land in question was already mutated in the office of Circle Officer as well as in the office of Ranchi Municipal Corporation in favour of the petitioners. 9. In view of above, it transpires that the judgment and decree passed in title suit has attained finality that was 55-60 years back at the time of passing ( 2026:JHHC:12345 ) 5 of the order by the learned SAR Court and now question of fraud has been raised by the private respondents which has been accepted by the learned courts. In this regard reference may be made to the judgment in the case of “Situ Sahu & others Vs. The State of Jharkhand and others” reported in AIR 2004 SC 4918 , wherein it has been observed as under:- “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 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. Further limitation period in passing such type of cases are said to be of 30 years, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Situ Sahu (supra). On the ground of limitation the case against Vakil Sahu has been rejected by the learned SAR Court and the case of the petitioners is on similar footing inspite of that the learned SAR Court has allowed the case against the petitioners and it has been pointed out that they have not been served notice as their names were not correctly mentioned in the petition. Thereafter they came to know the said order through Vakil Sahu and thereafter they filed the appeal. 11. In view of above facts, reasons and analysis the impugned order dated 04.09.2008 passed by the learned Special Area Regulation Officer, Ranchi in ( 2026:JHHC:12345 ) 6 SAR Case No. 372/2007-08, so far the case of the petitioners, is set aside except that part of order by which the case against Vakil Sahu has been dismissed by the learned court. Consequently, the appellate order dated 25.05.2010 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Ranchi in SAR Appeal No. 156-R-15/2008-09 and the revisional order dated 09.08.2010 passed by the learned Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in SAR Revision No. 51/2010 are also set aside. 12. The SAR Case No. 372/2007-08 is restored to its original file. The learned SAR Court will decide the said case afresh in the light of discussions made hereinabove. 13. The petitioners and respondent nos. 5 to 7 shall remain present before the SAR Court on 11.05.2026 and the learned SAR Court will proceed in accordance with law. Since the case is very old, it is expected that SAR Court will decide the said case expeditiously. 14. This writ petition is allowed and disposed of in above terms. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. Dt.28.04.2026 ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/A.F.R.