Jharkhand High Court
Anil Kumar Agarwal vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 June, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:16366
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (C) No. 4225 of 2001
-----
1. Anil Kumar Agarwal, S/o Ram Awatar Agrawal, R/o Jokhi Ram Market,
J.J. Road, Ranchi
2. (a) Sanjiv Agarwal, S/o Late Lal Mohan Agarwal and Late Shakuntala
Devi Agarwal
(b) Rajiv Agarwal, S/o Late Lal Mohan Agarwal and Late Shakuntala
Devi Agarwal, both R/o Bye Pass Road, Chas, P.S.-Chas, Dist.-Bokaro
3, Sushil Kumar Agarwal, S/o Radheshyam Agarwal, R/o Bye Pass Road,
Chas, P.S.-Chas, Dist.-Bokaro
4. Pawan Kumar Agrawal, S/o Late Radheshyam Agarwal, R/o Bye Pass
Road, Chas, P.S.-Chas, Dist.-Bokaro
5(a) Manish Kumar Agarwal, S/o Ram Awatar Agarwal, R/o Bye Pass
Road, Chas, P.S.-Chas, Dist.-Bokaro
6. Smt. Bimla Devi Agrawal, W/o Ram Awatar Agarwal, R/o Bye Pass
Road, Chas, P.S.-Chas, Dist.-Bokaro … …. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi
3. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
4. Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi
5(i) Asha Singh, W/o Late Narendra Deo Singh, R/o Mandir Kothi,
Kanke Road, Ranchi, P.S.Gonda Town, P.O. Ranchi University, Dist.-
Ranchi
5(ii) Shailesh Kr. Singh, S/o Late Narendra Deo Singh, R/o Mandir
Kothi, Kanke Road, Ranchi, P.S.Gonda Town, P.O. Ranchi University,
Dist.-Ranchi
5(iii) Manish Kr. Singh, S/o Late Narendra Deo Singh, R/o Mandir
Kothi, Kanke Road, Ranchi, P.S.Gonda Town, P.O. Ranchi University,
Dist.-Ranchi
5(iv) Seema Singh, D/o Late Narendra Deo Singh, R/o Mandir Kothi,
Kanke Road, Ranchi, P.S.Gonda Town, P.O. Ranchi University, Dist.-
Ranchi
5(v) Preeti Singh, D/o Late Narendra Deo Singh, R/o Mandir Kothi,
Kanke Road, Ranchi, P.S.Gonda Town, P.O. Ranchi University, Dist.-
Ranchi ... .... Respondents
With
C.W.J.C. No. 2800 of 2000(R)
1. Smt. Asha Singh, W/o Late Narendra Deo Singh
2. Sri Shailesh Kumar Singh, S/o Late Narendra Deo Singh
3. Sri Manish Kumar Singh, S/o Late Narendra Deo Singh
4. Smt. Seema Singh, D/o Late Narendra Deo Singh
5. Smt. Preeti Singh, D/o Late Narendra Deo Singh, All R/o “Mandir
Kothi” Kanke Road, Ranchi P.S., Gonda, P.O. Gandhinagar, Dist.-
Ranchi-834008
... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi
2025:JHHC:16366
3. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi
4. Jwala Prasad Thanthania, S/o Gobardhan Das Thanthania, of Annapurna
Rice Mills, Missirgonda, P.S.-Gondatown, Dist.-Ranchi
… …. Respondents
—–
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
—–
For the Petitioners : M/s Indrajit Sinha, Advocate &
Ms. Puja Agarwal, Advocate (In W.P.(C) No.4225/01)
Mr. Siddhartha J. Roy, Advocate (in CWJC No.2800/2000(R))
For the Respondent : Mr. Awnish Shekhar, AC to AAG-1 (in W.P.(C)4225/2001)
Mr. Vineet Prakash, AC to SC-IV (in CWJC No. 2800/2000(R))
—–
Oral Order
31 / Dated : 19.06.2025
1. Both these writ petitions, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, arise out of a common order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Ranchi dated 30.10.1996 in Case No. 78 R-28/92-93
and the Appellate Order dated 25.07.2000 passed by the Commissioner,
South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Revenue Appeal No.
519/1996 with respect of R.S. Plot No. 1767, Khata No.181, area 81
decimals and Plot No. 1768, Khata No. 26, area 87 decimals, total area
1.68 acres of Village Missirgonda, District-Ranchi.
2. Both the Petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order, by which the
land in question has been declared to be abandoned.
3. The Deputy Commissioner vide impugned order held that the recorded
tenant Jwala Prasad Thanthania had abandoned the land and had not
paid the rent with respect to it, therefore, it was declared to be
abandoned in terms of Section 73(2) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act,
1908 (for short CNT Act).
4. The order was passed ex-parte against Jwala Prasad Thanthania,
whereas Ashok Kumar Singh had appeared as an objector in the said
case claiming possession over the said land. The objection was
overruled and both the plots were declared to be abandoned.
5. It is argued by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel on behalf of the
petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 4225 of 2001 that the land in question was
recorded in the records of right as homestead (chhaparbandi) land and
the law is settled that CNT Act will not apply to chhaparbandi land. The
2
2025:JHHC:16366
legal position of non-application of CNT Act, to homestead plot is not
in dispute and is admitted in para 16 of the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the State in pursuance to the order dated 12.12.2024.
6. It is further argued that both Plot no. 1767 and 1768 have been
recorded as homestead in the revisional survey record of right.
7. So far as Plot no. 1768 is concerned, jamabandi has been made, on
entries being made in Register II and the rent has been paid paid up-to
the year 1968-69 by the Petitioners in W. P. (C) No. 4225 of 2001. This
has been admitted in the counter affidavit at para 16 and also has been
referred in the impugned order.
8. With regard to plot no. 1767, it is admitted that Register-II entries have
not been made and no rent were paid with respect to it. It is however
contended that on non-payment of rent, the land per se cannot be
declared as abandoned under Section 73(2) of the CNT Act, rather there
is a given procedure under Sections 58, 59 and 60 of the CNT Act.
Without taking recourse to these provisions, the learned Deputy
Commissioner has declared the land to be abandoned. It is further
argued that as per plot no. 1767, it is chhaparbandi land as per the
record of right filed by way of supplementary affidavit. Therefore, the
order passed by the Deputy Commissioner declaring it to be abandoned
was not sustainable.
9. So far as plot no. 1768 is concerned, there is no entry in register II and
so far as plot no. 1767 is concerned, rent has been paid only up-to 1968.
These are non-payment of rent not opening of the jamabandi with
respect to plot no. 1768 and evidence of no abandonment. So far as the
civil suit is concerned, it is argued that abandonment of land is not an
issue and the State is not even party in that case which is between both
these petitioners. Reliance is placed on the Division Bench of Patna
High Court in 1984 SCC Online 7 wherein it has been held that Section
71A will not apply if the land was chhaparbandi and will be governed
by the Transfer of Property Act.
10. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners in
C.W.J.C. No. 2800 of 2000(R) that the petitioners are in continuous
peaceful possession of the land over both these plots since 1948. The
3
2025:JHHC:16366
possession of the petitioner is established by the manner in which the
land has been dealt with since 1948. In evidence of possession, it is
submitted that he is having electrical connection since 1976 and re-
connection was taken in the name of Govind Das Bhrahmchari since
1976 (Annexure-1) and had been paying municipal tax to Ranchi
Municipality from 1972-1978, the municipal receipt form has been
filed along with water connection receipt (Annexures-2 &3).
11. The sum and substance of the argument of Mr. Sinha in both the cases
is that in view of the nature of chhaparbandi, no order under Section
71A of CNT Act could have been passed, as Tenancy Act would not
apply. For non-payment of rent, the only course opened to the State for
recovery of rent as per Chapter 9 of the CNT Act.
12. Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned order and
submitted that it has specifically come in the order passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Revenue Appeal No. 519/1996 dated
25.07.2000 that the recorded tenant paid the rent up-to 1968 with
respect to Plot No. 1767 and it was an agriculture holding and,
therefore, was amenable to the Tenancy Act 1908 non-payment of the
rent made it to amenable to the provision under Section 73 of CNT Act
which the order of abandonment has been passed.
FINDING
13. Having considered the submission advanced on behalf of both sides,
admittedly both these plots of land were recorded as homestead in the
remark column of R.S. records of right and was recorded in the name of
Jwala Prasad Thanthania. It is also not in dispute that so far as Plot No.
1767 is concerned, the rent was paid up-to the year 1968, and further
rent from 1967-68 to 1993-94 was paid by Ashok Kumar Singh with
respect to Plot No. 1767, as per the impugned order. So far as Plot No.
1768 is concerned, although it finds mentioned in the Khatiyan but
neither entry was made in Register-II nor any rent was paid with respect
to it.
14. With respect to Plot No. 1768, there is admission in the counter
affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No. 4225 of 2001 that there was a standing
building in the said plot which has been referred to as “gkrk esa dksBh”.
4
2025:JHHC:16366
15. From the pleadings of the parties and the materials on record, the
undisputed fact that emerges is that both these plots being Plot No.
1767 area 87 decimal under Khata No. 183 and plot No. 1768 area 81
decimal under Khata No. 26 were homestead plots situated in Mouza
Misirgonda, Dist.-Ranchi.
16. The short question that falls for consideration is whether Section 73(2)
of the CNT Act will apply and holding could have been declared
abandoned for non-payment of rent?
17. It is settled law that the Tenancy Act does not apply to homestead plot.
(Refer to1990 PLJR 707, 2004 SCC Online Jhar 173 & 1984 SCC
Online Patna 7)
18. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable as the
holding could not have been declared as abandoned in terms of Section
73 of CNT Act. The impugned order is set aside.
W.P.(C) No. 4225 of 2001 as well as C.W.J.C. No. 2800 of 2000(R)
are allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT/Satendra
5