BRISA MUNDA versus CHANDO KUMARI @ MOST DUMARI AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 430 · Decided: 16-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BRISA MUNDA 
v. 
CHANDO KUMAR! @ MOST DUMAR! AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 16, 1995 
B 
[G.N. RAY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] 
Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908: 
Section 46(4)(a}-Tribal-Application for possession of land sur-
C rendered by f ather-Revisional authority-Finding that application was filed 
within 12 years of dispossessiort-Held co1Tect-Held expression 'transfer' 
should be construed liberally-Su1Tender made by a Tribal held transfer within 
the meaning of the Act. 
Section 46(4)A(c}-Proviso-Tribal-Recovery of possession of sur-
D rendered land-Case of substantial construction by persons in occupa-
tion--Directions for ascertainment of nature of construction. 
Section 71-A-Applicability of 
Words & Phrases: 'Transfer'-Meaning of-Chhota Nagpur Tenancy 
E Act, 1908. 
An application filed by the appellant, a Tribal, under section 
46(4) (a) of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 for getting back posses-
sion of the disputed land surrendered by his father and settled in favour 
of the respondents was rejected by Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms. 
F 
On appeal the Additional Collector, Land Reforms remanded the Matter 
to Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms. In revision, the Commissioner 
relied on an entry made in the Bhujarat record of rights of 1960 wherein 
the appellant's possession was recorded and held that as the appellant was 
in possession within a period of twelve years from the date of filing his 
G application the matter should not have been remanded to Deputy Com-
missioner, Land Reforms. A single Judge of the High Court allowed the 
petition preferred by respondents. The appellant's appeal was dismissed 
by a Division Bench of the High Court. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended that the appellant's applica-
H tion under section 46 should be allowed because: (i) the Revisional 
430 
7 
BRISA MUNDA v. CHANDO KUMARI 
431 
authority had correctly given his finding that the application was filed A 
within 12 years from the date of dispossession; and (ii) the expression 
'transfer' should be construed liberally and consequently the surrender 
made by a Tribal should also be held to be a transfer within the meaning . 
of the Act. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment, this 
Court 
HELD : 1. The finding of the Commissioner that the appellant had 
made his application under section 46 of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 
1908 within 12 years from the date of dispossession is correct and need 
not be disturbed. The Commissioner in disposing of the revisional applica-
tion had placed reliance on Bhujarat Record of Rights made in 1960 where 
in the name of the applicant was recorded as in possession of the land in 
question. The presumption arising from the said record of right, therefore, 
clearly stood in favour of the appellant. The appellant's application is 
B 
c 
allowed. [434-C-E; G] 
D 
2. The expression 'transfer' appearing in Chhota Nagpur Tenancy 
Act, 1908 must be liberally construed and the surrender made by a tribal 
should be construed as a transfer under the said Tenancy Act. [ 434-F] 
Pandey Oraon v. Ram Chander Sahu & Ors., [1992] 2 Supp. SCC 77; 
relied on. 
3. The respondents have come out with a case that substantial struc-
ture had been constructed by them on the disputed land. The nature and 
value of the said structure has to be decided. Accordingly the Deputy 
Commissioner is directed to decide the claim of the respondents for relief 
under proviso to sub-section 4A(c) of section 46 within a period of six 
months from the date of the communication of this order. [434-H; 435-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10690 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.7.91 of the Patna High Court 
in L.P .A. 76 of 1991. 
Raju Ramachandran aiid Mrs. Sadhana Ramachandran, for the Ap-
E 
F 
G 
pellant. 
H 
432 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
.M.P. Jha and B.B. Singh for the Respondents. 
B 
c 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
·Leave granted. 
Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this appeal the appellant 
who is admittedly a tribal residing in Chhotanagpur Division made an 
application under section 46 (4)(a) under Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act for 
getting back possession of the disputed land which according to the appel-
lant was surrendered by the father of the appellant and on such surrender 
the said land was settled to the respondent Chando Kumari @ Most 
Dumari and Ors. Such application was made on 12th January. 1976 befo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.