RANCHI, India, Oct. 17 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Sept. 16:

Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

1. The instant Civil Review has been preferred for reviewing the order dated 19.03.2024 passed by this Court in WP [C] No.6051 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the Writ Petition was dismissed. 2. Order of dismissal was assailed before Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.011073 of 2024, which was dismissed on 14.05.2024.

3. Thereafter, LPA No.469 of 2024 was preferred against the order under Review and the same was disposed of, with liberty to prefer a Civil Review against the order passed in the said Writ Petition.

4. The brief facts, of the case is that O.P No.5 filed an application under Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act being S.A.R. Case No.368 of 2005-06 for restoration of land under Village - Samlong, P.S. No.212, Khata No.172, Plot No.709, Area 1.03 Acres on the ground that the nature of land was Bakast Bhuiyanri, Pahnai land, and the land was alleged to be illegally grabbed by one Alfred Minj and Stiphen Toppo in volation of the provisions the CNT Act.

5. Special Officer ordered for restoration of the same vide order dated 10.04.2008. SAR Appeal No.21 R 15 of 2008-09 was also dismissed vide order dated 20.05.2008 and was further affirmed in SAR Revision No.80 of 2008 vide order dated 26.10.2010.

6. Writ Petition being WP (C) No.6051 of 2010 was preferred against the order of restoration and the same was dismissed vide order dated 19.03.2024 and the instant Civil Review Petition has been filed for reviewing the same.

7. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that law is settled by long-line of judicial precedence that restoration application is not maintainable after 30 years of dispossession. This issue was raised before the learned Court below as well as before this Court, but the same has not been answered.

8. A specific reference has been made in Para-6 of the judgment passed by this Court in the said Writ Petition wherein this plea had been taken, but no finding has been recorded with respect to it. In support of the contention that the petitioner was in possession on the land, in question, since more than 40 years and the photocopy of the rent receipts, with respect to the land building Plan dated 07.05.1963, and photocopy of the holding Tax Receipts have been brought on record by way of a supplementary affidavit.

9. Learned counsel for the Opp. Party(s) while opposing the prayer has submitted that the claim of possession for 40 years and more was based only on a sada hukumnama and without any supporting documents. There was no documentary evidence to show that the petitioners were in possession of the land. Documents which are being filed now by way of supplementary affidavit cannot be considered. No such document was filed at any stage. It was claimed that petitioner was in possession of the land since the year 1958-59, however, the documents regarding electrical connections [rectified on 21.01.1986] were filed. Further, settlement of land in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was not made after seeking permission from the Deputy Commissioner, which is violation to the provisions of the CNT Act.

10. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides and on perusing the materials on record, the main plea of the petitioner is that the restoration case was barred by limitation, as it was filed after 30 years, which is not considered to be reasonable time for filing such a petition. Rent receipts and holding tax receipts have been filed now, but the same were not earlier filed before any court at any stage.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816x2tSr6tZiF5tqgpn2rgoJdYRZPHJH%2FYtRdm%2FbZ8%2FVO02&caseno=C.Rev./35/2025&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010101992025&state_code=7&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.