Pioneer News Service
Ranchi
The Jharkhand High Court recently delivered a significant judgment regarding the restoration of tribal land under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act (CNT Act). A single-bench court presided over by Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held that while the statute may not prescribe an explicit statute of limitations, the right to challenge tribal land transfers cannot exist indefinitely.
The court emphasized that decades-old land disputes that have already been legally settled and were not challenged in a timely manner cannot be allowed to be reopened years later without a solid legal basis. All legal proceedings must take place within a reasonable timeframe. For the petitioner, learned counsel Ram Prakash Singh appeared.
The case pertains to 1.32 acres of land (Khata No. 41, Plot No. 610) located in Chanho, Ranchi, and was brought to the High Court by petitioner Amar Kumar Chaudhary. The petitioner’s father had purchased the land for ₹2,500 in 1947 and had been in continuous possession ever since.
However, a dispute arose, leading to a Title Suit in 1962, which was formally settled through a compromise in 1965. In 1986–1987 a case under the Scheduled Area Regulation (SAR) was filed for the first time. Taking into account the prior compromise and the provisions of the CNT Act, the SAR Officer ordered that an equivalent area of land be registered in favor of the tribal original tenant (raiyat). The order was fully complied with—the deed was registered, and the mutation was completed without any challenge. But, nearly 20 years later in 2006, another SAR case was filed regarding the exact same parcel of land. The SAR Officer initially dismissed it on the grounds of Res Judicata (a matter already judged). However, the Appellate and Revisional Authorities overturned that dismissal, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.
Allowing Amar Kumar Chaudhary’s petition, the High Court set aside the orders passed by the South Chota Nagpur Divisional Commissioner and the Additional Collector.
Petitioner’s advocate Ram Prakash Singh submitted that the learned appellate authority has wrongly hold that there was no structure on the land in question which is contrary to any evidence led before the court. He next submits that there are witnesses examined in SAR Case No.10/86-87 where they have clearly deposed that the structures were there, however, the learned appellate authority and the learned revisional authority have not considered the deposition and in absence of any document, has passed the orders.
The High Court held that the 1988 order had attained finality. The 2006 case was hit by the doctrines of Constructive Res Judicata and inordinate delay/laches.
The High Court cited key Supreme Court precedents, including the landmark Situ Sahu and Phoolchand Munda cases, reiterating that proceedings under Section 71-A of the CNT Act must be initiated within a reasonable period.
The court noted that the appellate and revisional authorities erred in assuming there were no permanent structures on the land, contradicting witness statements, while the state failed to produce concrete documentary evidence to support their conclusions.
The court observed that in thousands of similar cases across the state, descendants of original tenants accept land/compensation in SAR settlements but later file fresh SAR cases against buyers. This practice often leads to prolonged harassment and extortion. This ruling aims to put a firm stop to such practices.
