Court Rules Transfer of Raiyati Land via Fraudulent Compromise Decree Violates Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908; Emphasizes Protection Under Section 71-A and Invalidity of Unauthorized Transfers
The Jharkhand High Court, in a significant judgment dated September 1, 2026, has dismissed a writ petition challenging the restoration of possession of land in favor of a Scheduled Tribe member, respondent no.5, the widow of late Jyotish Singh Munda. The petitioners, claiming possession based on a compromise decree from 1968, sought to set aside multiple orders passed under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (“Act of 1908”), which upheld the widow's right to reclaim the land.
The dispute pertained to land recorded under khata no. 151, Mauza Deoghar, East Singhbhum district. The petitioners argued they had been in peaceful possession since 1967, relying on a title suit (No. 791/1967) ended in compromise, and mutation in their favor was recorded only in 1999. They contended that the subsequent restoration case filed by respondent no.5 was barred by limitation and challenged the validity of the restoration orders passed by various authorities, including the Deputy Collector and Deputy Commissioner.
The Court, presided over by Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, extensively analyzed the scope of Section 71-A of the Act of 1908, which provides enhanced protection to Scheduled Tribe raiyats against unlawful transfers of tenancy land. The Court referred to the authoritative Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in Bina Rani Ghosh v. Commissioner, South Chota Nagpur Division (1988), which clarified that transfers obtained by fraud and collusion, including compromise decrees, are expressly barred and can be set aside without limitation of time by the Deputy Commissioner.
Further, the Court emphasized Section 46(3) of the Act, which declares any transfer violating its provisions as invalid and not recognizable by Civil, Criminal, or Revenue courts. This meant that even registered deeds or decrees resulting from collusive transactions cannot confer valid title to land. The Court observed that the compromise decree relied upon by the petitioners was collusive and obtained in violation of statutory provisions, thus not sustainable.
The Court also noted the procedural non-compliance in the suit where the Deputy Commissioner was not made a party, contrary to requirements under Section 46(3-A) of the Act, underscoring the illegality of the transaction. It rejected the petitioners’ argument regarding the land’s conversion into Chapparbandi (tenant-held) land, holding that the original nature of the land could not be altered by such collusive arrangements.
Importantly, the Court recognized the legal entitlement of the widow, respondent no.5, as the first legal heir and successor of the deceased raiyat to file the restoration case. The Court found no merit in the limitation plea since Section 71-A allows the Deputy Commissioner to act suo motu or upon application to annul unlawful transfers without any limitation period.
In conclusion, the Jharkhand High Court upheld the orders restoring possession of the land to respondent no.5, dismissing the petitioners’ writ petition and pending applications. This judgment reinforces the protective framework under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, safeguarding Scheduled Tribe occupancy rights against fraudulent and unlawful alienations.
Bottom Line:
Chotanagpur Tenancy Act - Restoration of possession under Section 71-A - Compromise decree obtained by fraud and collusion cannot be allowed to prevail - Transfer made contrary to provisions of Section 46(1) of the Act is invalid and not recognized by any Court.
Statutory provision(s):
Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 Sections 46(1), 46(3), 46(4-A)(a), 71-A
Ananta Gour @ Anant Kumar Pradhan v. State of Jharkhand, (Jharkhand) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2973676
