Jharkhand HC Dismisses Writ Against Restoration of Adivasi Land, Holds 1970 Sale Deed Invalid Under CNT Act
The Jharkhand High Court upheld the restoration of tribal land to a Scheduled Tribe purchaser, ruling that an unauthorised 1970 sale of Adivasi land violated Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and could not be recognised as valid by any court.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, sitting singly at Ranchi, dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution that challenged a revisional order restoring tribal land to respondent no. 7, Surpati Devi. The petitioners — legal heirs of Sadik Miyan — had claimed title to land in Village Ghutwa, PS Patratu, District Ramgarh on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 02.07.1970. The court found that the land was Adivasi in character, that the petitioners were not members of a Scheduled Tribe, and that a sale without the prior sanction of the Deputy Commissioner was void under Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. No illegality was found in the order of the revisional authority, and the writ petition was dismissed on 25 August 2026.
The Land Dispute and Procedural History
The land in question is Khata No. 42, Plot No. 1273, measuring 0.92 acres in Village Ghutwa, PS Patratu, District Ramgarh. During the last survey settlement, it was recorded in the names of Bhikhwa Bediya and Bepate Bediya, sons of Madhuwa Bediya. Bepate Bediya died without issue, and Bhikhwa Bediya came into possession of the entire plot. His son Sukra Bediya inherited the property and in 1970 sold it to the original petitioner Sadik Miyan by registered Sale Deed No. 6111 dated 02.07.1970.
Sadik Miyan applied for mutation of his name before the Circle Officer, Patratu. The Circle Officer issued a public notice inviting objections up to 10.07.1996, but mutation was never completed. The petitioners contended that Sadik Miyan remained in peaceful possession since 1970.
Respondent no. 7, Surpati Devi, claimed to have purchased 0.67 acres of the same Plot No. 1273 from Sukra Bediya by a registered deed dated 13.05.2003, after obtaining prior permission from the Deputy Commissioner in Case No. 40/2002 by order dated 13.01.2003 under Section 46(1) of the Act. Mutation was effected in her name. She alleged that within six months of her purchase she was dispossessed by the original petitioner.
Surpati Devi then filed Restoration Case No. 12/2004-05 before the LRDC, Ramgarh under Section 46(4) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, claiming to be a member of a Scheduled Tribe who had been dispossessed. The LRDC allowed the restoration petition in her favour by order dated 21.04.2005.
The Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, in R.A.N. Case No. 04/05, set aside that LRDC order by order dated 30.08.2005. The Additional Collector found that the respondent's name had been mutated without verifying actual possession, and held the restoration petition to be barred by limitation under the proviso to Section 46(4-A)(a) of the Act, which prescribes a twelve-year limitation period. The Additional Collector suggested that Surpati Devi approach the Civil Court.
The Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, in Revision Case No. 97 of 2005, reversed the Additional Collector's order by order dated 10.05.2013, restoring the LRDC's findings. The petitioners then filed W.P.(C) No. 5821 of 2013 challenging both the revisional order and the LRDC order.
Arguments Before the High Court
Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, counsel for the petitioners, advanced several grounds. He argued that the Bedia community does not appear in the Scheduled Tribes list and falls instead in the Backward Class category, making the restoration petition under Section 46(4) not maintainable. He relied on the different spelling — “Bediya” in the Backward Class list — to distinguish it from “Bedia”. He also contended that the Additional Collector rightly held the petition to be barred by limitation since no specific date of dispossession had been established, and that the revisional authority erred in overturning that finding. He further submitted that under Section 6 of the Act, 1908, which defines “raiyat”, a mere purchaser cannot be a raiyat, rendering the respondent's petition legally infirm.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, State Counsel (S.C.-I), supported the revisional order. He submitted that “Bedia” has been in the Scheduled Tribes list since the Gazette Notification dated 06.09.1950 and that the “Bediya” appearing in the Backward Class list is a different caste with a different spelling. He also submitted that even accepting the petitioners' argument on tribal status, the 1970 transaction was made without the prior permission required under Section 46 of the Act and is therefore barred under Section 46(3).
Mr. A.K. Sahani, counsel for respondent no. 7, submitted that his client is a member of the Bedia Scheduled Tribe, purchased the land with prior permission from the Deputy Commissioner, and was dispossessed within six months of purchase. He submitted that the twelve-year limitation in the proviso to Section 46(4-A)(a) was therefore not attracted. He also argued that the finding that “Bedia” falls within the Scheduled Tribes had not been challenged by the petitioners before the appellate authority and could not be assailed in the writ. On the definition of “raiyat”, he relied on Section 6(1) of the Act, which expressly includes a “successor-in-interest”, to establish that respondent no. 7 qualified as a raiyat.
The Court's Reasoning
The court addressed each ground in turn.
Bedia as a Scheduled Tribe. The court reproduced the relevant extract from the Gazette of India dated 06.09.1950 (S.R.O. 510), being the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 (C.O. 22), made under clause (1) of Article 342 of the Constitution. Part II of the Schedule, covering Bihar, lists “Bedia” at serial no. 4 as a Scheduled Tribe throughout the State. The court held that this Gazette Notification makes it clear that Bedia is a Scheduled Tribe. The argument that the spelling “Bediya” in a Backward Class notification referred to the same community was not accepted. The court noted that the finding on Bedia's Scheduled Tribe status had also not been challenged by the petitioners before the appellate authority.
Definition of raiyat. The court set out Section 6(1) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, which defines “raiyat” as primarily a person who has acquired a right to hold land for the purpose of cultivating it, and expressly includes the “successor-in-interest” of such a person. The court held it was crystal clear from this provision that respondent no. 7, as a purchaser with prior permission, was a raiyat within the Act.
Validity of the 1970 sale deed. The court found that the petitioners are admittedly not members of a Scheduled Tribe and that the land is Adivasi land. The 1970 sale deed was executed without the prior sanction of the Deputy Commissioner required under Section 46(1) of the Act. Section 46(3) of the Act provides unequivocally that no transfer in contravention of Section 46(1) shall be registered or recognised as valid by any court, whether exercising civil, criminal, or revenue jurisdiction. The court held that a collusive or unauthorised transaction by registered deed cannot be treated as valid in light of Section 46(3). The fact that the Deputy Commissioner later granted permission to respondent no. 7 in 2003 — permitting a Scheduled Tribe member to purchase the same land — further confirmed that the revenue authorities continued to treat the land as Adivasi in character.
Limitation under Section 46(4-A)(a). Respondent no. 7 purchased the land in 2003 and was dispossessed within six months. The court accepted that the twelve-year limitation in the proviso to Section 46(4-A)(a) was not an obstacle in her case given these facts.
Reliance on Patna High Court Full Bench. The court referred to the Full Court judgment of the Patna High Court in Bina Rani Ghosh v. Commissioner, South Chota Nagpur Division, reported in 1988 Supreme (Pat.) 195. That judgment, at paragraphs 11 and 24, held that Section 71A of the Act gives the Deputy Commissioner wide power to restore raiyati land of a Scheduled Tribe member where transfer has occurred in contravention of Section 46 or by any fraudulent method, without any time limit. The court noted that while that judgment concerned Section 71A, its findings on Section 46 and fraudulent transactions are applicable to the present case.
Outcome
The court found no illegality in the order of the learned Revisional Authority, the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division. W.P.(C) No. 5821 of 2013 was dismissed. All pending applications in the petition were also disposed of.