IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (C) No. 2740 of 2006
...
Bipin Gope ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
The State of Jharkhand & Others ... Respondents.
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - M/s. K. M. Verma
& Suraj Kumar, Advocates.
For the State : - J.C. to S.C. (L & C)
...
C.A.V. On: - 19/12/2008 Delivered On: - 09/01/2009
...
15/ 09.01.2009
Petitioner in this writ application has prayed for issuance of an
order for quashing the proceedings vide Misc. Case No. 1 of 2004-05, pending
before the Respondent No. 3 for execution of the order dated 07.01.1991, passed
by the Respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in
S.A.R. Appeal No. 54 of 1986-87, whereby on dismissal of the appeal, the land in
question was directed to be restored in favour of the Respondent No. 6 on his
making payment of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the petitioner within three
months prior to the date of the order.
2. The facts of the petitioner’s case in brief is that his father, late Bir
Singh Gope had purchased the land under reference in this case, from the previous
recorded tenant, namely, Birsa Purty. Besides occupying the constructed house,
which was already in existence over the land, the purchaser constructed another
house within the same land and has been in occupation and possession of the
same and after him, his son, namely the petitioner has come in occupation of the
land alongwith the house structure.
In the survey settlement of 1964, the land was recorded in
the name of the petitioner’s father and till December, 2001 the rent continued to
be paid by the petitioner against the receipts issued by the Circle Officer. While
the petitioner and other heirs/successors of late Bir Singh Gope were enjoying
peaceful occupation and possession of the land, one of the co-owners, namely,
Bipin Chandra Karji filed an application before the Circle Officer for demarcation
of the land in question. The land was demarcated by the Amin of the area in
presence of the entire co-villagers and no objection was raised from any corner at
that time, from any co-villager, not even the Respondent No. 6.
Earlier, while the petitioner’s father was alive, the
Respondent No. 6 had filed a land Restoration case before the Sub-Divisional
Officer. The case was allowed with a direction to the petitioner’s father to restore
the land in favour of the Respondent No. 6 on payment of compensation of
Rs.20,000/- by the Respondent No. 6. Being aggrieved by the order for
compensation, the Respondent No. 6 filed a T.A. Misc. Appeal No. 117 of 1975-
76. For a second time also, an order was passed for restoration of the land but on
[2]
[W.P. (C) No. 2740 of 2006]
deposit of Rs.20,000/- to be made by the Respondent No. 6 within a period of two
months from the date of the order.
Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner’s father had filed
an appeal vide S.A.R. Appeal No. 54 of 1986-87. The Appeal was dismissed and
the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer for restoration of the land on the
Respondent No. 6, depositing payment of Rs. 20,000/- was confirmed. The order
by the appellate authority was passed on 07.01.1991.
Thereafter, the Respondent No. 6 does not take any steps to
deposit the amount and the land continued to remain in occupation and possession
of the petitioner.
Later, in the year 1998, the Respondent No. 6 filed an
application before the Circle Officer for mutation of his name claiming that a sum
of Rs. 20,000/- was already deposited by his father, late Guna Ho in compliance
of the appellate court’s order dated 07.01.1991. The application for mutation was
dismissed on the ground that the receipt in respect of the purported deposit of
money was not produced.
Thereafter, the Respondent No. 6 moved the Deputy
Commissioner Land Reforms sometime in the year 2004.
The matter was remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Chaibasa, who by his order dated 21.11.2005, directed the Opposite
Party/petitioner to receive the compensation amount.
3. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Sub-Divisional
Officer on the ground that the proceeding for restoration of the land and to accept
the amount of compensation is bad in law, since it is barred by limitation and also
on the ground that the petitioner has perfected his right over the land by the
principles of adverse possession by remaining in occupation of the land for more
than 30 years since the date of actual physical possession.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that under Section
71 (a) of the C.N.T. Act, the process for restoration of the land could not be
initiated after the period of limitation defeating the petitioner’s right, which she
had acquired by way of adverse possession.
5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents.
Denying and disputing the entire grounds advanced by the petitioner, learned
counsel for the Respondents would submit that the grounds are totally misleading
and incorrect. The petitioner cannot claim any right on the basis of adverse
possession and furthermore, there is no period of limitation prescribed for
restoration of Tribal land under the provisions of Section 71 (a) of the C.N.T. Act.
6. From the rival submissions, the admitted facts are that the lands
stood originally recorded in the name of the ancestor of the Respondent No. 6,
who was a member of the Schedule Tribe.
[3]
[W.P. (C) No. 2740 of 2006]
Although, the petitioner’s ancestor had come in occupation
and possession of the land on the basis of his claim of having purchased the land
from the previous recorded tenant sometime in the year 1956 but a claim for
restoration of the land was filed by the father of the Respondent No. 6 against the
petitioner’s father way back in 1975 and by the order passed by the competent
authority, the land was directed to be restored to the father of the Respondent
No.6 on the condition of the later’s depositing a compensation amount of
Rs.20,000/-. It further appears that though the compensation amount was not
deposited promptly by the Respondent No. 6 but eventually such amount came to
be deposited by his father and thereafter, on an application being filed by the
Respondent No. 6, the Sub-Divisional Officer by his impugned order had directed
the petitioner to accept the amount and restore the possession of the land in favour
of the Respondent No. 6.
7. It is by now well-settled that in the matter of restoration of tribal
land under the provisions of Section 71 (a) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, no
period of limitation is prescribed. The petitioner’s plea of acquiring right over the
land on the principle of adverse possession is not tenable or acceptable in the facts
and circumstances of the case. Since the order of restoration of the land to the
Respondent No. 6 had acquired finality, the mere delay, if any, on the part of the
Respondent No. 6 or his father to deposit the compensation amount, cannot
deprive of his entitlement to the restoration of the land unto him. In this case, as it
appears from the undisputed statement of facts pleaded by the Respondent No. 6,
his father had deposited the amount of compensation long ago in favour of the
petitioner’s father. It was on failure of the petitioner to receive the amount, that
the application was filed by the Respondent No. 6 for effecting the delivery of
restoration of possession by calling upon the petitioner to receive the
compensation amount.
8. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any
infirmity or illegality in the impugned direction of the Respondent No. 3 calling
upon the petitioner to receive the compensation amount and to restore the
possession of the lands under reference to the Respondent No. 6. There being no
merit in this writ application, the same is dismissed. The petitioner shall receive
the compensation amount and restore the possession of the lands to the
Respondent No. 6 within one month from the date of this order.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
APK