Jharkhand High Court
Dukhi Orain vs Kishun Oraon on 28 August, 2025
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Second Appeal No.193 of 2010
[Against the judgment dated 08.09.2010 and consequent thereupon decree
dated 20.09.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Lohardaga in T.A.
No.03 of 2002]
------
1. Dukhi Orain, wife of late Rupdeo Oraon
2. Jagarnath Oraon, son of late Rupdeo Oraon
Resident of village + P.O.-Jagiyara, P.S.-Kisko, District-
Lohardaga
.... Appellants/defendants
Versus
1. Kishun Oraon, son of late Litangu Oraon
Resident of village+P.O.-Jagiyara, P.S.-Kisko, District-
Lohardaga .... .... Respondent/Plaintiff
2. Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga
.... .... Performa Respondent
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Manjul Prasad, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Aukhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Aman Kedia, Advocate
For Resp-State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.C. to S.C.-I
For Resp. No1 : Mr. Vishal Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Ishaani Singh, Advocate
Mr. Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, Advocate
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
CAV On 14/07/2025 Pronounced On 28/08 /2025
S.A. No.193 of 2010
1
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )
1. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants and
learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The instant second appeal is preferred being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with reversal of judgment and decree passed by the
District Judge, Lohardaga in Title Appeal No.03 of 2002 whereby
and whereunder the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit
No.35 of 1996 dated 12.09.2001 dismissing the suit of the
plaintiff, has been reversed and decreed.
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the original
plaintiff, Budhwa Lecha Oraon instituted the Title Suit No.35 of
1996 before the court of Civil Judge Jr. Division, Lohardaga
claiming relief(s) for adjudication of right, title and interest over
the suit land and to declare the order dated 10.01.1985 passed by
the Anchal Adhikari, Kisko in Tana Bhagat Land Restoration
Case No.1 of 1982-83, is illegal and without jurisdiction. The
plaintiff has further prayed for declaration that neither the
defendant No.1 nor his ancestors were Tana Bhagat and they
never took part in freedom movement. The plaintiff has further
claimed relief for recovery of possession of the suit property
ejecting the defendant No.1 through process of the court along
with cost of the suit.
S.A. No.193 of 2010
2
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )
4. According to the plaintiff, lands pertaining to C.S. Plot No.287
under C.S. Khata No.4 of village Jogiyara held and possessed by
one Khakhu Sahu and recorded in his name. The said Khakhu
Sahu died leaving behind his son Haudan Sahu. It is further
alleged that R.S. Plot Nos.408, 409, 485 and 486 and R.S. Khata
No.56 have been carved out from C.S. Plot No.287 and recorded
in the name of Haudan Sahu. By way of amendment in the
plaint, it was further added that at the time of C.S. operation,
C.S. Plot No.287 was being cultivated by one Ludra Oraon, son
of Faudha Oraon as adhbataidar of Khakhu Sahu, hence, Dar
Raiyati C.S. Khata No.7 was prepared under C.S. Khata No.4 in
the name of Ludra Oraon and C.S. Plot No.287 was recorded
under Dar Raiyati Khata No.7.
5. It is further alleged that both Ludra and Khakhu Sao died,
thereafter, the possession was recorded in the name of Haudan
Sahu, son of Khakhu Sao. It is further alleged that in the year
1955, the family arrangement took place between Haudan Sao
and his sons in which the suit lands were exclusively allotted to
Radha Prasad, who sold the suit land to the plaintiff through
registered sale deed dated 08.05.1962 and delivered the
possession. The name of plaintiff has been mutated in revenue
record and he is paying rent to the State of Bihar.
S.A. No.193 of 2010
3
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )
6. The defendant No.1 and his ancestor had no right, title and
interest over the suit land. The defendant No.1, since 1976-77, in
order to grab the suit lands along with other lands started posing
himself as Tana Bhagat and filed an application under Section
71-A of C.N.T. Act for restoration of 16 plots of land of R.S.
Khata Nos.7, 21, 37, 56 and 57 of village Jogiyara, which was
rejected by L.R.D.C, Lohardaga in S.A.R. Case No.78 of 1975.
No appeal was preferred against the said order, but
another restoration case being S.A.R. Case No.14 of 1976-77 was
filed, which was again rejected vide order dated 15.09.1976.
Thereafter, an appeal being Revenue Appeal No.110 of 1976-77
was preferred which was also dismissed and against the
dismissal of order of the Revenue Appeal, a Revenue Revision
No.287 of 1977 was filed by the defendant No.1, which was
remanded for further enquiry and disposal vide order dated
08.03.1980. Accordingly, restoration order under section 71 (A) of
C.N.T. Act was passed by Additional Collector Ranchi on
19.08.1981 in respect of 27 plots of lands. The said order was set
aside by the Revenue Commissioner in the Revenue Appeal
No.110/1976-77, although, observation was made that ancestors
of the defendant No.1 were Tana Bhagat and they participated in
the freedom movement and their lands were auctioned and sold
S.A. No.193 of 2010
4
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )
for arrears of land revenue and the Deputy Commissioner was
directed to start a proceeding under the provision of Ranchi
District Tana Bhagat Raiyat’s Agricultural Land Restoration Act,
1947 to passed an appropriate order.
In pursuance of this order, restoration proceeding was
again started by Circle Officer, Kisko with respect to the different
plots of Khata Nos.7, 21, 41, 30, 10, 53, 16 and 56 in restoration
case No.1/82-83 and the order of restoration was passed.
Therefore, the plaintiff’s title has been shaded with clouds,
hence, this suit.
7. On the other hand, the case of the defendant No.1 is that the
present suit is barred under sections 7 and 8 of Ranchi District
Tana Bhagat Raiyats’ Agricultural Land Restoration Act, 1947.
Notice under section 80 of CPC has not been served on the
Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga before filing the suit. The
order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga dated
27.07.1987 dismissing the appeal of the plaintiff, has become final
and no civil court had jurisdiction over the matter.
It is further stated that the lands pertaining to R.S.
Khata No.56 does not correspond to C.S. Plot No.287 of C.S.
Khata No.4 rather the suit lands correspond to C.S. Plot No.287
of C.S. Khata No.7, which was recorded in the name of Ludra
S.A. No.193 of 2010
5
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )
Oraon, who was Tana Bhagat Raiyat and his sons and heirs had
taken part in freedom movement in between 1913 to 1942.
It is further stated that due to non-payment of arrears
of land, the suit land as well as other lands of the defendant was
auctioned by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Execution
Case No.670 of 1928-29, for which a suit was brought by one
Haudan Sahu in the year 1926-27 against the ancestors of the
defendants. The recorded tenant of C.S. Khata No.7, Ludra Tana
Bhagat was the grandfather of the defendant No.1.
It is further stated that the first S.A.R. case was filed
under section 71-A of C.N.T. Act but the second S.A.R case was
filed as per observation made by the Court of Commissioner in
Revision No.287 of 1977 under Ranchi District Tana Bhagat
Raiyats’ Agricultural Land Restoration Act. Therefore, the suit of
the plaintiff is not maintainable and fit to be dismissed.
8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties following issues were
settled by the learned trial court for adjudication:
(i) Is the suit as framed maintainable?
(ii) Has the plaintiff got valid cause of action for the
suit?
(iii) Is the suit barred by the law of limitation weiver
estoppels and acquiescence?
(iv) Is the suit barred by res-judicata?
(v) Is the suit bared under sections 7 and 8 of Ranchi
District Tana Bhhagat Act?
S.A. No.193 of 2010
6
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )
(vi) Whether the defendant or his ancestors were
Tana Bhagat and suit land ever belonged to
defendant No.1?
(vii) Whether the plaintiff has got title over the suit
land?
(viii) Whether the order dated 10.01.1985 passed by
Anchal Adhikari, Kisko in Tana Bhagat Land
Restoration Case No.1 of 1982-83 is illegal and
without jurisdiction?
(ix) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of
possession over the suit land from the defendant
No.1?
(x) Any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiff
may be entitled too?
9. Learned trial court after considering oral as well as documentary
evidence adduced by the parties has decided all the issues
against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit.
10. In order to prove the above issues, the parties have adduced
following evidence:-
Plaintiffs’ Evidence:-
11. The plaintiff has examined altogether 6 witnesses namely:-
P.W.1-Karma Oraon
P.W.2-Sheo Nath Oraon
P.W.3-Hari Nath Oraon
P.W.4-Budhuwa Lecha Oraon
P.W.5-Jeet Baran Oraon
P.W.6-Bisheshwar Sahu
Apart from the oral testimony of the witnesses,following documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of
the plaintiff:-
S.A. No.193 of 2010
7
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )
Ext.1-Sale deed No.1164 dated 08.05.1962 executed by
Radha Prasad in favour of the Budhuwa Lecha Oraon
with respect to Khata No.56, Plot Nos.408, 409, 485 and
486.
Ext.2 and 2/a is the sketch map of C.S. Khata No.485,
408, 409 and 486
Ext.3-Recent survey khatiyan of Khata No.28 recorded
in the name of Budhwa Lecha Oraon son of Ludra
Oraon.
Ext.4- Order dated 10.08.1982 passed by Commissioner
in revision No.206 of 1981
Ext.5- C.S. record of rights of khata no.4, plot no.328
recorded in the name of Khaku Sahu in possession of
Ladura Oraon as a dar-raiyat Khata No.7 & Plot
No.335 recorded in the name of Khaku Sahu in
possession of Ludra Oraon in dar-riyat khata no.8, plot
no.287 is recorded in the name of Khaku Sahu and in
the possession of Ludra Oraon dar-riyat khata no.7.
Ext.6 is the order passed by commissioner in revision
no.287/1977 on 08.03.1980
Ext.6/a- Order passed by the commissioner in revision
No.206 of 1981
Ext.7 is the certified copy of C.S. record of rights of
khata no.4 recorded in the name of Khakhu Sahu
Ext.8 is the certified copy of the recent record of rights
of khata no.28 in the name of Budhwa Lecha Oraon.
Ext.9- R.S. record of rights of khata no.56 recorded in
the name of Haudan Sahu
S.A. No.193 of 2010
8
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )
Ext.10 & 10/a are the map of village Jogiyara published
in the year 1908 and 1934 respectively.
Defendants’ Evidence:-
On the other hand, the defendants have examined altogether
5 witnesses namely:-
D.W. 1-Soma Tana Bhagat
D.W.2-Tinku Tana Bhagat
D.W.3-Lalu Oraon
D.W.4-Rupdeo Tana Bhagat
D.W.-5 Jagarnath Tana Bhagat
Following documentary evidences of the defendants hasbeen adduced, which are as under:-
Ext.A-Caste Certificate issued by Anchal
Adhikari(Circle Officer), Kisko granted on 14.05.1998
in favour of Rupdeo Tana Bhagat that he was Oraon,
Tana Bhagat.
Ext.B- Order of writ of delivery of possession issued to
the Halka Karmachari.
Ext.X is the certificate by Ranchi District Congress
Committee.
Ext. X/1 is the Xerox copy of an application written by
Sahabir Tana Bhagat.
Ext.C- Order of restoration order in favour of the
respondent passed by CO in 1/82-83.
Ext. C/1- Order of delivery possession
Ext.C/2- Order dated 27.08.1987 in Appeal No.3 R
15/86-87 in the court of DC.
S.A. No.193 of 2010
9
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )
Ext.C/3- Order dated 10.08.1982 in Ranchi Rev.
Revision No. 206 of 1981
Ext.C/4-Order dated 08.03.1980 passed in Ranchi Rev
Revision No.287 of 1977.
Ext.D- Order of execution case No.630 of 1928-29 Court
of Rent Suit Deputy Collector, Ranchi.
Ext.E- C.S. Khatiyan of dar-raiyat khata no.7 of village
Jogiyarra recorded in the name of Ladura Oraon and
the rent was received by Khakhu Sahu of khata no.4.
Ladura Oraon was under adhbatai-dar-raiyat. Plot
No.287 area 1.10 acres is included in this khata.
Ext.F-Order dated 29.1.1926 passed by Rent Suit
Deputy Collector. By this order eviction was ordered
against (i) Jeetu Singh, (ii) Ado Sigh, Both son of Gauri
Singh village of Barwa Toli (iii) Vikram Munda, son of
Baudha Munda, (iv) Ludra Munda, son of Mangraj
Munda of village-Jogiyara Baudha Toli.
12. Learned trial court has taken issues Nos.VI, VII, VIII and IX
together for adjudication and on the basis of oral and
documentary evidence adduced by the parties came to
conclusion that the defendants’ ancestor was dar-raiyat under
Khata No.7 of the recorded tenant. The defendants being
ignorant as original persons has not filed any document to show
that his ancestor was Tana Bhagat, who went to jail in freedom
movement but Ext.C shows that Rupdeo Tana Bhagat was
convicted under section 145 of IPC in case No. 910/331 of 1933.
S.A. No.193 of 2010
10
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )
The oral testimony of the defendant No.4 also shows that Ludra
Oraon was his grandfather, who had taken part in freedom
movement and stopped to give rent with respect to the suit land
appertaining Khata No.7, which was auctioned sold in 1928-29
and taken by Haudan Sahu. Therefore, as per the provisions
under Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyats’ Agricultural Land
Restoration Act, 1947, Anchal Adhikari in land restoration Case
No.1/82-83 has rightly ordered for delivery of possession of the
suit land to the defendants, therefore, plaintiff has no right, title
and interest over the suit land. Accordingly, the aforesaid issues
were decided against the plaintiffs.
13. Since, the aforesaid main issues were decided in favour of the
defendants against the plaintiff. Other issues Nos. I, II, III, IV, V
and X have also been decided against the plaintiff and suit of the
plaintiff was dismissed on contest but without cost. The plaintiff
preferred first appeal assailing the judgment and decree of trial
court in Title Appeal No.03 of 2002 wherein learned Appellate
Court rewriting the judgment has decided all the issues in this
case as settled by learned trial court by re-appreciating and
scrutinizing the evidence available on record.
14. The Appellate Court has taken issues Nos. VI and VII as primary
issues for adjudication:-
S.A. No.193 of 2010
11
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )
It is observed that under section 2 (1) of Ranchi District
Tana Bhagat Raiyats’ Agricultural Land Restoration Act, 1947
requires two things to be proved; firstly his land should have
sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent in between 1913
and 1942. Secondly, the default in payment of rent must have
occasioned due to participation in freedom movement. It was
further observed that once the plaintiff proves his title to the
land in question, the claim of the defendants for restoration of
land in question on the basis of Ranchi District Tana Bhagat
Raiyats’ Agricultural Land Restoration Act, 1947 can succeed
only, if it proves the necessary ingredients.
15. As regards issue No.V, learned trial court has merely reiterated
the provision of section 7, which provides that Anchal Adhikari
may pass order under Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyats’
Agricultural Lands Restoration Act, 1947 and appeal shall lie to
the Deputy Commissioner and the order of Deputy
Commissioner or Commissioner on such appeal shall be final
and according to section 8 of the Act neither the High Court nor
any civil court have any jurisdiction in any matter which the
Deputy Commissioner is empowered to dispose of under this
Act. Accordingly, decided the aforesaid issue against the
plaintiffs.
S.A. No.193 of 2010
12
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )
16. Learned Appellate Court had placed reliance upon the full
Bench’s decision of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of
Paritosh Maity and etc v Ghasiram Maity and Anr. (1988) BLJR
34, wherein it has been held that “in case of declaration of title
and confirmation of possession, a civil suit is maintainable for
challenging the entries of revenue records”. This authority has
been followed by Hon’ble Court in subsequent decision. By the
same logic it can be held that where the question of title is
involved the jurisdiction of civil court is not fettered.
17. Learned Appellate Court after perusal of the documentary
evidence led by the plaintiff arrived at conclusion that originally
the suit land was belonging to Khakhu Sahu as a recorded Raiyat
and ancestors of defendants, Ludra Oraon was shown as dar-
raiyat and a separate Khata No.7 was allocated. It is also not
disputed fact that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property
from the ancestor of recorded raiyat in whose share, the suit
propery was allotted since 1962. The dispute was raised by
defendant No.1 since 1976 when successive SAR case was filed
and lost and ultimately the case was filed under Ranchi District
Tana Bhagat Raiyat Agricultural Land Restoration Act, 1947. The
plaintiff got his name mutated and was in possession but due to
impugned order passed in said proceeding, he was dispossessed.
S.A. No.193 of 2010
13
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )
Therefore, title of the plaintiff is not disputed. Now the question
arises as to whether defendants is Tana Bhagat within the
meaning of Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyat Agricultural
Land Restoration Act.
So far the first limb of the aforesaid section 2(1) of the
Act is concerned, it is evident from Ext.D execution Case
No.630/1928-29 that C.S. Plot No.287 was auctioned with other
plots in the rent suit was filed by Haudan Sahu against Mostt.
Mango Orain and others. Ext-F is also the order of rent suit of
1926-27, in which various plots were auctioned in the rent suit,
therefore, there is no doubt that C.S. Plot No.287 which was
recorded in dar-raiyat Khata No.7 was auctioned following the
rent suit filed by Haudan Sahu. Therefore, first limb of the
section is established.
So far as, second limb of section to be proved by the
defendants, there is no pleading at all in their written statement
about the name of their ancestor, who took part in freedom
movement or who served any term of sentence of imprisonment.
The ambiguous assertion has been made that the ancestor of
defendants took part in the freedom movement. Although even
taking latitude view having in mind the loose drafting of
pleading in Muffasil courts, learned Appellate Court has
S.A. No.193 of 2010
14
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )
considered the family pedigree of the defendants as given in
para 11 of the written statement and also the oral evidence led by
the defendants and observed that only Rupdeo Oraon, the
defendant No.1 has produced Ext.C that his ancestor was
convicted in the year 1933 in case 910/331 for the offence under
section 145 of IPC, who happens to be great grandson of Ludra
Oraon recorded dar-raiyat but neither Ludra Oraon nor his five
sons and two grandsons were ever involved in any freedom
movement and the suit land was auctioned sold much prior to
the rent suit.
The defendants’ witnesses have tried to give oral
evidence that sons of Ludra Oraon and Dasai have also taken
part in freedom movement and had also went to jail and also
sustained sentence of six months but different witnesses have
given different stories and no documentary evidence has been
adduced.
It was further held that the proceeding under Ranchi
District Tana Bhagat Raiyats’ Agricultural Land Restoration Act,
1947 was also barred under section 4(4) of the said Act, which
specifically prohibits any initiation in proceeding under sub-
section 1 of sub-section 4 of the Act after 31st day of March, 1962.
S.A. No.193 of 2010
15
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )
Here, in this case, no such application was filed
therefore, learned Appellate Court arrived at conclusion that the
defendants have failed to lead any cogent evidence to prove that
any of his ancestors was a Tana Bhagat Raiyat within the
meaning of section 2(1) of the Ranchi District Tana Bhagat
Raiyats’ Agricultural Land Restoration Act, 1947 and the
restoration proceeding was also not filed on or before 31.03.1962,
therefore, title of the plaintiff over the suit land cannot be
decided on the basis of uncertain claim made by the defendants
as Tana Bhagat.
On the basis of aforesaid findings of core issues,
learned Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree
passed by learned trial court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff
and allowed the appeal.
18. This second appeal was admitted vide order dated 13.10.2022 on
following substantial questions of law:-
(i) Whether the First Appellate Court committed an
error of law by holding that the suit is not barred by
Section 8 of The Ranchi District Tana Bhagat
Raiyats’ Agricultural Lands Restoration Act, 1947?
(ii) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the
First Appellate Court is perverse having been
S.A. No.193 of 2010
16
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )passed by misinterpreting the provisions of The
Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyats’ Agricultural
Lands Restoration Act, 1947 and ignoring the
documents and evidence in the record?
19. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that learned
First Appellate Court while deciding issue No.5 which pertains
to first substantial question of law formulated in this second
appeal has categorically recorded findings that civil court has
jurisdiction to entertain any suit of civil nature, which is barred
under sections 7 and 8 of Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyats’
Agricultural Land Restoration Act. Learned Appellate Court
without meting the reasons of learned trial court has wrongly
decided issue No.5, since the question of title is involved here
which can be decided only by the civil court and not by the
Revenue Court.
Similarly as regards the second substantial question of
law, it is argued that learned First Appellate Court has miserably
failed to correctly apply the provision of Ranchi Tana Bhagat
Lands Restoration Act ignoring the vital documentary evidence
of appellants/defendants which Ext.F and C/3 which clearly
proves that defendants were Tana Bhagat and due to
participation in freedom movement their agricultural land was
S.A. No.193 of 2010
17
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )
auctioned sold. The possession of the ancestors of Ludra Oraon
is also proved by Khatiyan and thereafter his descendants and
separate Khata No.7 was called out of C.S. Khata No.4
corresponding to R.S. Khata No.56.
Learned First Appellate Court has miserably failed to
appreciate that the said land was sold under auction proceeding
during involvement of freedom movement of defendants’
ancestor namely Dasai Oraon, therefore, the impugned judgment
and decree passed by learned First Appellate Court reversing the
judgment and decree of learned Trial Court is absolutely illegal
and not warranted under law and fit to be set aside allowing this
appeal.
20. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has
vehemently argued that there is no legal substance in the
substantial questions of law raised in this appeal in as much as
learned trial court has recorded no reasoning at all while
deciding issue No.5 rather the First Appellate Court
meticulously examined the issues and on the basis of sound
principles of law decided that the question of title and
confirmation of possession can only to be decided by the Civil
Court and not by any Revenue Court and civil suit can be
entertained in spite of any bar created under Revenue Acts. The
S.A. No.193 of 2010
18
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )
similar bar has also been created under section 258 of CNT Act,
1908. In this regard, he has also placed reliance upon the
reported judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of
Paritosh Maity and etc v Ghasiram Maity and Anr. (1988) BLJR
34 as relied upon by learned appellate court.
It is further submitted that learned First Appellate
Court has very wisely and aptly taken into consideration
relevant provision of Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyats’
Agricultural Land Restoration Act, 1947 and rightly held that
although the ancestor of defendants, Ludra Oraon was recorded
as dar-raiyat under Khakhu Sao and evicted for non-payment of
rent in execution case but at the same time, the defendants failed
to prove that any of the ancestors of the defendants was Tana
Bhagat and ever participated in freedom movement at the time
of their eviction from the land. Learned appellate court has also
found that two successive SAR case were filed by the defendants
and were dismissed.
Learned appellate court has also rightly appreciated
that under sub-section 4 of section 4 proviso specifically provides
that any proceeding under Sub-section 1 can be initiated only
prior to 31st March, 1962. Therefore, the proceeding itself was not
maintainable before Anchal Adhikari and Deputy
S.A. No.193 of 2010
19
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )
Commissioner. The Appellate Court has passed sound and
reason order differing from the findings of the learned Trial
Court and set aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court
which does not warrant any interference in this appeal. This
second appeal has no merits and liable to be dismissed.
21. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned
judgment passed by learned Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court in the light of contentions raised on behalf of
both sides.
22. At the very outset, it would be relevant to discuss the provisions
of law involved in this second appeal and propounded as
substantial questions of law.
2. Definitions. – In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in
the subject or context,-
[(1) “Tana Bhagat raiyat”, in relation to any agricultural land in the
district of Ranchi sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent, means
a raiyat or under raiyat who defaulted in payment of arrears of rent or
any decree for such arrears in pursuance of any freedom movement
launched or believed to have been launched in any of the years 1913 to
1942;]
[4. Procedure for effecting restoration of holdings sold for
arrears of rent. – (1) If the holding of any Tana Bhagat raiyat has been
sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent due to the default, in
payment of such arrears or decree, made by such raiyat in pursuance of
any freedom movement launched or believed to have been launched in
any of the years 1913 to 1942, the Deputy Commissioner shall, on an
application made in the prescribed form and in the prescribed manner
by the Tana Bhagat raiyat or if he is dead, his legal representative or
S.A. No.193 of 2010
20
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )
any other person duly authorised in this behalf by such Tana Bhagat
raiyat or his legal representative, for the restoration of such holding to
the ownership and possession of the Tana Bhagat raiyat or, as the case
may be, his legal representative, make an inquiry in the prescribed
manner after giving the parties interested a reasonable opportunity of
being heard.]
(2) If after the inquiry under sub-section (1), the Deputy Commissioner
is satisfied about the claim of such Tana Bhagat raiyat or his legal
representative he may require him to deposit with the Deputy
Commissioner within the time allowed by him such sum as may be
determined by him having regard to the amount for which the holding
was sold to the auction-purchaser or alienated, in any of the ways
specified in sub-section (2) of Section 6, to the person in possession of
the holding, either in whole or in part, for valuable consideration and
the amount of any compensation for improvements effected to the
holding which the Deputy Commissioner may deem fair and equitable.
(3) If the Tana Bhagat raiyat or, as the case may be, his legal
representative makes the deposit required under sub-section (2), the
Deputy Commissioner shall make an order in writing restoring the
holding to the ownership and possession of such Tana Bhagat raiyat or
his legal representative.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Deputy
Commissioner may, on receipt of any information, or on his own
knowledge, that the holding of any Tana Bhagat raiyat has been sold in
execution of a decree for arrears of rent for the reasons stated in sub-
section (1), initiate of his own motion proceedings for restoration of
such holding to the ownership and possession of such Tana Bhagat
raiyat or, if he is dead, to his legal representative and thereupon the
provision of sub-section (1), (2) and (3) shall apply mutatis mutandis to
such proceedings:
Provided that no proceedings shall be initiated under sub-section (1) or
subsection (4) [after the 31st day of March, 1962.]
Explanation. – In this section-
(i) “parties interested” means the auction-purchaser of the
holding or any person who may be in possession of such holdingS.A. No.193 of 2010
21
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )by alienation in any of the ways specified in sub-section (2) of
Section 6, and
(ii) “holding”, includes a portion of a holding.
7. Appeals. – (1) An appeal shall lie from an order passed under
Section 4.
(i) if such order is passed by an officer, other than the Deputy
Commissioner, to the DeputyCommissioner;
(ii) if such order is passed by the Deputy Commissioner, to the
Commissioner;
and the decision of the Deputy Commissioner or of the Commissioner
on any such appeal shall be final.
(2) Appeals under this section shall be heard and disposed of in
accordance with the prescribed procedure.
8. Exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court and High Court. –
Neither the High Court nor any Civil Court shall have jurisdiction in
any matter which the Deputy Commissioner is empowered to dispose of
under this Act and the order of the Deputy Commissioner under any
provision of the Act shall, subject to the provisions of Section 7, be final
and shall not be questioned in any Court.
23. The very first substantial question of law raised in this appeal
pertains to jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain the suit against
the specific provision of sections 7 and 8 of Ranchi District Tana
Bhagat Raiyats’ Agricultural Land Restoration Act, 1947. In this
connection, learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned
first appellate court has placed reliance upon the reported
judgment in Paritosh Maity and etc v Ghasiram Maity and Anr.
AIR, 1987, Patna 167, wherein at para 10, which has been held as
under:-
S.A. No.193 of 2010
22
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )
“10. Against the aforesaid legislative background, one may now
revert to the wholly well known provisions of S. 9, Civil P.C., the
relevant part thereof may be quoted for facility of reference:
“The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein
contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature
excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or
impliedly barred.”
There cannot be any dispute that questions relating to title
in land or any interest in land are matters of a civil nature. Both
generally and specifically the suits involved in this set of appeals
are suits of a civil nature and jurisdiction of the Civil Court can
only be barred if firstly, it is expressly excluded or secondly, if it
is so done by necessary implication. Indeed, in this context some
basic propositions are so well established by judicial
pronouncements that they need to be only recapitulated, viz.:
(i) A litigant having a grievance of a civil nature has,
independently of any statute, a right to institute a suit in
Civil Court unless its cognizance is either expressly or
impliedly barred and there is a strong presumption in
favour of the jurisdiction of a Civil Court (see (1) AIR
1964 SC 1126 (V.R. Sadacope Naidu v. Bakthavatsalam),
(2) AIR 1961 SC 149 (Brij Raj Singh v. Laxman Singh),
and (3) AIR 1961 Patna 142 (FB) (Patna Municipal
Corporation v. Ram Bachan Lal).
S.A. No.193 of 2010
23
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )
(ii) The exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court is not to be
readily inferred. A statute ousting jurisdiction of the Civil
Court must do so either in express terms or by use of such
languag as would necessarily lead to such an inference
(see AIR 1969 SC 439 (Musamia Imam Haider Bax
Razvi v. Rabari Govindbhai Ratnabhai and AIR 1969 SC
560 (Dewaji v. Ganpatlal)).
(iii) The onus is on the party who seeks to oust the
jurisdiction of the Civil Court to establish its stand.
Further, a statute ousting the jurisdiction of the Civil
Court must be strictly construed (see AIR 1966 SC 1718
(Abdul Waheed Khan v. Bhawani)).
(iv) Even if the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is excluded
by statute, in case where the provisions of such statute
have not been complied with, or a statutory tribunal has
not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of
judicial procedure, the Civil Courts would still have
jurisdiction to examine such cases (see AIR 1966 SC 1718
: Abdul Waheed Khan v. Bhawani)”.
24. In view of aforesaid settled principle of law, the claim of the
plaintiff/respondent, who has knocked the door of the Civil
Court for declaration of his right, title and interest and recovery
of possession due to his wrongful dispossession by Revenue
Court, cannot be said to be not entertainable under law
S.A. No.193 of 2010
24
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )
otherwise, a rightful owner of the property might be deprived of
his lawful rights. In this case, it is admitted position that
recorded Raiyat of the lands under suit was one Khakhu Sahu
and thereafter inherited by his son. The great grandfather of the
defendant No.1, Ludra Oraon was recorded as dar-raiyat in
respect of some partition of land of the principal Raiyat.
25. It is also established that the said dar-raiyat was evicted from the
suit property, execution case No.630 of 1928-29 and it is also
admitted position that the plaintiffs have purchased the suit
property from the descendant of original recorded Raiyat in the
year 1962. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff pertaining to
declaration of title and recovery of possession is absolutely
maintainable under Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code and as
against the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the
appellant cannot be entertained, therefore, I do not find any legal
substance in the first substantial question of law, which is
decided in negative against the appellant.
26. So far as the second substantial question of law involved in this
appeal is concerned, from perusal of the trial court judgment as
regards issue Nos.VI, VII, VIII and IX, there is no discussion
about the question involved as to whether the defendants or
their ancestors were recognized as Tana Bhagat during execution
S.A. No.193 of 2010
25
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )
proceeding for eviction on account of arrears of rent of their
ancestors.
Learned First Appellate Court has rightly discussed
the said question in two limbs: In the first hand, the plaintiff is
title holder of the property, which is proved by oral as well as
documentary evidence and also admitted fact. The claim of
defendants is based upon special plea recognized under Ranchi
District Tana Bhagat Raiyats’ Agricultural Land Restoration Act.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon the defendants to prove the
ingredients of provision under section 2(1), which defines Ranchi
District Tana Bhagat Raiyats’ Agricultural Land Restoration Act
and also is entitlement of restoration of possession in legal
manner.
27. In this connection, learned First Appellate Court discussed two
limbs of the definition of Tana Bhagat land and both are required
to be proved by the defendants. The defendants have to prove
that he was dispossessed from the land in execution of a decree
for arrears of rent and secondly in default of payment of rent
should have occasion because of participation in the freedom
movement. In the instant case, there was no pleading at all in the
written statement of the defendants regarding participation in
any freedom movement. Ludra Oraon was dar-raiyat and there is
S.A. No.193 of 2010
26
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )
no whisper in the written statement as to how he participated in
freedom movement. Simply, a reference has come up in the
order of the Circle Officer (Ext.C) regarding case No.910/331 of
1933 that ancestor of the defendants Rupdeo Tana Bhagat has
been sentenced under section 145 of IPC but no documentary
evidence has been adduced. The eviction has taken place out of
execution case No.630 of 1928-29 (Ext.D), which was instituted
by Haudan Sahu, son of Khakhu Sahu against sons of Ludra
Oraon and rent suit of 1926-27 (Ext.F) was also filed by Haudan
Sahu against sons of Ludra Oraon in the year 1926-27. None of
the aforesaid ancestors of the defendants have been proved to
have participated in any freedom movement due to which they
cannot pay arrears of rent and evicted. Therefore, there is no
reason to entertain the argument of learned counsel for the
appellants that the provision of Ranchi District Tana Bhagat
Raiyats’ Agricultural Land Restoration Act, 1947 has not been
considered in right perspective by the First Appellate Court. The
appellants were never vigilant to enforce their rights within time
frame as provided in the proviso to section 4 (4)of the said Act,
till 31st March, 1962 and made futile exercise since the year 1976
to dispossess the settled Raiyat from the suit land.
S.A. No.193 of 2010
27
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:25815 )
28. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, I do not find any
merits in this second appeal, which stands dismissed on contest
and the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate
Court appears to be well reasoned and considered on facts and
law, which is hereby affirmed and upheld. Both parties shall
bear their own cost.
29. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.
30. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be
sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Date: 28 /08 /2025
Pappu/-N.A.F.R.
S.A. No.193 of 2010
28
[ad_1]
Source link