LexJAI MANGAL ORAON versus SMT. MIRA NAYAK AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A JAI MA..l\lGAL ORAON v. SMT. MIRA NAYAK AND ORS. ETC. MAYS, 2000 B [M.B. SHAH AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908-Section 71-A and Sections 46 & 72 (as amended by Chhotanagpur Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1947)-Applicabil- ity of-On the land surrendered by the tenant in 1942-Whether p1ior sanction C of the Deputy Commissioner required before surrender-Held, no. Constitution of India, I950-Article 136-Subsequent developments - Admissibility of-At appellate stage-Held, subsequent development or facts and turn of events coming into existence but found really relevant, genuine and vitally imp01tant in effectively deciding the issues raised and necessary to do D real, effective and substantial justice or prevent miscarriage of justice ought to be taken into consideration by courts even at the appellate stage. E F G Interpretation of Statute-Words "if at any time ...... "-Meaning of- Held, cannot be taken to mean that the powers can be exercised without any point of time limit-Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908-Section 71-A. 'N', the tenant of the land in question, who was a member of a tribe, surrendered the lands vide registered deeds to some persons, on 15.1.1942, which ultimately came in the hands of respondents No. 1 in the present appeals. They started construction on the land. Appellant filed an application alleging that respondent No. 1 had forcibly started occupying the land in question which belonged to him. He claimed that after the death of 'N', 'S' succeeded to his interest and thereaf- ter he succeeded to the land as adopted son of 'S' vide an adoption deed. Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation initiated proceedings under Section 71A of <:;hhotanagpur Tenancy Act (CNT Act) and directed respondent Nos. 1, in separate proceedings, to stop the construction and to appear before its court. Respondent Nos. 1 approached High Court, in separate. writ peti- H tions against the notice of the Special Officer (SO), challenging his juris- 1128 .. .IA! MANGAL ORAON 1\ MIRA NA YAK 1129 diction and authority and legality of the proceeds. One of' the writ petitions was allowed relying on a decision in Smt. Muni Devi and Others v. Special Officer Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi, (1990) PLJR 641. During pendency of the other writ petition, SO by his final order directed one of the respondents to restore the possession of the land to the appellant. The respondent amended the Writ petition questioning the final order of the SO. The writ petition was allowed by High Court. The respec- tive LPA and review petition filed against the decisions in the writ peti- tions, were dismissed .. A B In appeal to this Court, respondent No. 1 contended that surrender C having taken place on 15.1.1942, there was no need for obtaining any previous sanction of Deputy Commissioner and statutory provisions as were in force on that date only applied to the case; that Section 71-A, which was newly introduced in 1969, had no application to the case; that the character of the land was Chhaparbandi and the surrender was not of any raiyati interest of· a tenant to attract the prO\isiom of CNT Act; and that the appellant had no locus stanch' to agitate the present case, since he is not the adopted son of "S' and he has manipulated and fabricated a false document by impersonation in order to usurp the land. The respondents also brought to the notice of the Court, the facts and the subsequent developments that in a case instituted by the daughters of 'S', SO held that the appellant was not the adopted son of 'S' and the same was confirmed by the appellate court; that the adoption deed under which the appellant was claiming status of' an adopted son, has been declared by the competent Civil Court to he forged and fraudulent document; and that the appellant had been evading arrest in a criminal case, filed by the daughters of 'S' u/ ss. 420,466-468 & 120-B 1PC, wherein an order for proclamation u/s. 82 Cr.P.C had been passed. The appellant contended that the respondents, wtio are non-tribals cannot he allowed to retain the lands in question and the same are liable to be allotted to a tribal only. Dismissing the appeals, this Court HELD : 1.1. The appeals have to fail on the basis of the subsequent developments noticed, which disentitle the appellant to claim or assert any right in the lands in question. [1137-B-C] D E F G 1.2. Even subsequent development or fact
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.