JHARKHAND HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON PAWAN BECK V/S THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

RANCHI, India, Aug. 12 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on July 14:

1. Instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 05.03.2001/16.04.2001 passed in SAR Revision No.117/97 by which the order of restoration under Section 71-A of the CNT Act has been allowed setting aside the order passed in SAR Case and the appeal arising therefrom which was earlier passed in favour of the petitioner.

2. As per the case of the petitioner, the land in question was purchased by one Alfons Kujur on 28.04.1939 in Rent Execution Case No.2540R9 of 1936-37, delivery of possession was given to the auction purchaser on 30.11.1937.

3. The auction purchaser came in possession of the land, and transferred the same to Madna Beck, the ancestor of the petitioner by registered sale deed dated 11.12.1940.

4. Restoration case being SAR Case No.105/1989-90 was initiated under Section 71A of the CNT Act which was dismissed by SAR Court as well as in appeal, but reversed in revision against which the instant writ petition has been preferred. The challenge to the impugned order proceeds on two grounds. Firstly, Section 71A CNT Act will not apply in case of Court auction purchase in view of ratio laid down by this Court in Ram Sewak Sahu Vs. State of Bihar, 1988 BLT (Rep) 172, Abdul Salim Vs. The Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division & Others, 1990 BLT (Rep) 217.

5. It is further argued that the restoration application was filed after 53 years which is time barred in view of ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of: -

i. Situ Sahu & Others Vs. State of Jharkhand & Others, (2004) 8 SCC 340

ii. Jai Mangal Oraon Vs. Smt. Mira Nayak & Others, (2000) 5 SCC 141

iii. Anupama Roy Vs. State of Bihar & Others, 2003 SCC OnLine Jhar 380

6. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of private respondents that no document with regard to auction sale was ever produced therefore, revision was decided against them. It is further submitted that the original restoration order was passed by the SAR Court vide order dated 10.07.1990 in which the Dakhaldiyani has also been issued on the said order, which was reviewed on 12.10.1990 and then the application was rejected. Restoration was done without notice and opportunity of being heard. Second limb of argument is, no document with regard to the said rent case in which the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner purchased the land in 1940, has been brought on record.

7. Having heard the submission advanced on behalf of both sides, I find that the impugned order passed by the revisional Court is not sustainable for two reasons. Firstly, claim of petitioner to the land in question is based on auction purchase, therefore, in view of the ratio as referred to above, Section 71-A of the CNT Act shall not apply. Further, the restoration application is also not filed within reasonable time and therefore, is deemed to be time barred.

8. The impugned order is set aside.

Writ Petition is allowed. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.