Prakash Munjal v. Jharkhand

Judgment

1. The State of Jharkhand. Versus Jharkhand, 2.Chief Secretary, Government Jharkhand Mantralaya, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa District Ranchi.

3. Home Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Jharkhand, Jharkhand Mantrayala, Project Building, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa District Ranchi.

4. Director General of Police, Government of Jharkhand, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa District Ranchi.

5. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O. P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi Jharkhand.

6. Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, Jharkhand P.O. G.P.O. P.S. Kotwali, District Ranchi Jharkhand.

7. Officer In-Charge Sadar Police Station, P.O G.P.O. and P.S. Sadar District Ranchi. 9(a) Salo Devi, W/o Late Sanjay Pahan, aged about not known to the petitioner, R/o Booty, P.O.-G.P.O, P.S. Sadar, Dist.-Ranchi. 9(b) Asha Kumari, D/o Late Sanjay Pahan, aged about 20 years, R/o Booty, P.O.-G.P.O, P.S. Sadar, Dist.- Ranchi. 9(c) Misha Kumar, D/o Late Sanjay Pahan, aged about 18 years, R/o Booty, P.O.-G.P.O, P.S. Sadar, Dist.- Ranchi. 9(d) Usha Kumari, D/o Late Sanjay Pahan, aged about 15 years, R/o Booty, P.O.-G.P.O, P.S. Sadar, Dist.- Ranchi. 1 9(e) Anisha Kumari, D/o Late Sanjay Pahan, aged about 10 years, R/o Booty, P.O.-G.P.O, P.S. Sadar, Dist.- Ranchi. 9(f) Ansh Pahan, S/o Late Sanjay Pahan, aged about 20 years, R/o Booty, P.O.-G.P.O, P.S. Sadar, Dist.-Ranchi. ..... Respondent(s) W.P.(C) No. 1791 of 2021 ….…..

1. Prakash Munjal, aged about 72 years, S/o Late Jiwan Lal Jiwan Lal, R/o Firayalal Compound, Kadru Diversion Road, near Railway Overbridge, Ranchi, P.O and P.S. Chutia, District -Ranchi (Jharkhand) 2. Harish Munjal, aged about 68 years, S/o Late Jiwan Lal Jiwan Lal, R/o Firayalal Compound, Kadru Diversion Road, near Railway Overbridge, Ranchi, P.O and P.S. Chutia, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand). 3. Ritual Munjal, aged about 40 years, Firayalal Compound, Kadru Diversion Road, near Railway Overbridge, Ranchi, P.O and P.S. Chutia, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) ..… Petitioner(s) Versus

1.State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Revenue, Land Reforms and Registration, officiating from his office at Project Bhawan, Dhurva, P.O- Dhurva, P.S- Jagannathpur, Dist-Ranchi.

2. The Presiding Officer-cum-Hon'ble Minister, Revenue, Registration Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, officiating from his office at Project Bhawan, Dhurva, P.O- Dhurva, P.S- Jagannathpur, Dist-Ranchi. Land

3. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi having his office at O/o Collectorate Building, near Civil Court, P.O- G.P.O and P.S- Kotwali, Dist. Ranchi. 4(a). Salo Devi, W/o Late Sanjay Pahan aged about not known to the petitioner, R/o Booty, P.O. Booty, P.S. Sadar, District-Ranchi. 2 4(b). Asha Kumari, D/o Late Sanjay Pahan aged about 20 years, R/o Booty, P.O. Booty, P.S. Sadar, District- Ranchi. 4(c). Misha Kumar, D/o Late Sanjay Pahan aged about 18 years, R/o Booty, P.O. Booty, P.S. Sadar, District- Ranchi. ..... Respondent(s) ….. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ….… For the Petitioner(s) : For the State : For the Private Resp. : ….….. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha, Adv Mr. Kundan Kr. Ambastha, Adv Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, A.G. Mr. Piyush Chitresh, AC to A.G. Mr. Amritansh Vats, Adv Mr. Shivak A. Pathak, Adv Mr. Amartya Choudbey, Adv Mr. Arpan M. Ekka, Advocate Mr. Ashish Choudhary, Adv C.A.V. ON 13/03/2026 PRONOUNCED ON:01/05/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Both these Writ Petitions involve common issue; accordingly, with consent of the parties, both were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The relief sought in WP(S) No. 1510 of 2021 is as follows:- issuance

1. That in the instant writ petition the petitioners pray appropriate writ/rule/order/direction commanding upon the respondents and refraining them from making illegal and unauthorized construction over the lands measuring an area of 2.90 acres appertaining to R.S Plot Nos. 1947,1948 and 1949 of Khata No. 79 situated at Village Booty, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi exclusively belonging to the petitioners having acquired the same in a legal and 3 valid manner by registered deed of sale dated 2.12.1959 after obtaining permission of competent authority under section 49 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act in view of the fact that the petitioners have been forcibly evicted from the lands under proceeding without taking recourse of law and the respondent authorities have not taken any action despite the several representations and complaint made by the petitioners stating therein that the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 along with 400 persons have unlawfully assembled over the lands in the night of 20th February 2021 and surrounded the lands by PVC Sheets forcibly and stealthily and are making illegal constructions over the lands under proceeding without having any right, title and interest over the same AND forcibly and respondents have Further the petitioners pray that the respondent authorities be directed to restore the possession of the aforementioned lands to the petitioners forthwith as illegally dispossessed the petitioners from the lands without initiating any proceeding and without any order of the competent authority and the respondent authorities be directed to demolish the unauthorized and illegal construction over the lands and direction may be given to the respondents to maintain ante status quo with respect to the lands in question AND/OR Pass such other relief or reliefs to which the petitioners are legally entitled to.

4. The relief sought in WP(S) No. 1791 of 2021 is as follows:- a. For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) for quashing of the order dated 17th of February 2021 passed by the Presiding Officer-cum- Hon'ble Minister, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand (Respondent No. 2) in Misc Case No. 267 of 2020 (Annexure-16) by which Respondent No. 2 has passed an order to restore possession of the lands measuring 2.90 acres appertaining to R.S. Plot nos. 1947, 1948 and 1949 of Khata no. 79 situated at village Booty, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi in favour of the respondent 4 no. 4 under Section 49(5) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act while further directing to annul the permission granted by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi on 11th of November 1959 under Section 49 of the CNT Act for sale of the aforementioned lands vide permission case no. 34R8II/1959-60 as well as to annul the transfer of land by sale deed dated 2nd of December 1959, executed and registered in favour of the ancestor of the petitioners namely Jiwan Lal after obtaining permission of the competent authority, while issuing direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to lodge criminal case against the petitioners and direction has also been given to the Anti-Corruption Bureau to lodge F.I.R. against the petitioners; the impugned order has been passed solely on the basis of an affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 4 and has been passed without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner and without considering the several judicial order with respect to the same property. Respondent No. 2, has further ignored that the application is hopelessly barred by limitation. AND b. For the issuance of such other writ(s), order(s), or direction(s) to stay the operation of the order passed in Misc 267 of 2020 till the adjudication of the instant writ petition. Case No. AND/OR c. For the issuance of such other writ(s), order(s), or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may think just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.

5. Briefly stated as per the writ petitions, in a nutshell, are that as per the Survey Record of Rights (1935), lands situated at Village Booty, P.S. Sadar, Thana No. 182, under Khata No. 79, comprising Plot Nos. 1947 (0.67 acres), 1948 (0.70 acres) and 1949 (1.53 acres), were recorded in the name of Bipta Pahan. Upon his demise, the said lands devolved upon his sons, Ram Pahan and Somra Pahan. In 5 the year 1959–60, the said raiyats applied before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 34R 8 (II) of 1959– 60 seeking permission to transfer the land. Upon recommendation of the Rent Suit Deputy Collector and approval of the Sub-Divisional Officer, permission was granted by the Deputy Commissioner on 13.11.1959 under Section 49 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, pursuant to which a sale deed was executed by Somra Pahan (for himself and on behalf of his brother Ram Pahan, who was deaf and dumb) in favour of Jiwan Lal, the predecessor of the petitioners. A mortgage (jarpeshgi) was also created in favour of Dayanand Modi, which was subsequently redeemed by the petitioners’ predecessor. Thereafter, a series of proceedings ensued wherein

possession and rights of Jiwan Lal were repeatedly affirmed. Proceedings under Sections 144 and 145 of CrPC initiated by one Azmat Ali in 1961 and 1964 respectively were decided in favour of Jiwan Lal, and even a criminal revision (No. 8 of 1964) preferred against such orders was dismissed, culminating in execution of a release deed by Azmat Ali in favour of Jiwan Lal. Mutation in favour of the petitioners’ predecessor pursuant to Case No. 51(R)27 of 1960–61 also attained finality.

6. Subsequently, in 1991, Sukra Pahan initiated 6 proceedings under Section 71A of the CNT Act (SAR Case No. 185 of 1990–91), which were challenged by Jiwan Lal before this Court in CWJC No. 2321 of 1991 (R), wherein the proceedings were stayed and ultimately set aside. Parallel SAR cases (Nos. 34, 35 and 36 of 1991), though initially allowed ex parte, were also rendered ineffective in view of the orders passed by this Court. A subsequent SAR Case No. 276 of 2002–03 also failed. Thereafter, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5100 of 2004, which was allowed directing issuance of rent receipts in their favour.

7. In the year 2018, Somra Pahan instituted Original Suit No. 657 of 2018, before Civil Judge, Senior Divion, Ranchi. Subsequently, in 2020, upon an application made by Sanjay Pahan, proceedings under Section 49(5) of the CNT Act were initiated, and despite submission of a detailed reply by the petitioners, the Presiding Officer-cum-Minister, Government of Jharkhand Ranchi, vide order dated

17.02.2021, purportedly cancelled the permission granted under Section 49. Hence this writ petition. Submission on behalf of Petitioner

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the admitted case of both the parties that the permission under Section 49 of the Act, 1908 was accorded by the then 7 Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi on 13th of November 1959. Section 49(5) of the Act, 1908 was inserted vide the Amending Act of 1975, i.e., much after the transaction [also much after the lapse of a period of 12 (twelve years) dated of 13th of November 1959. Learned counsel submitted that Section 49(5) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 cannot be applied retrospectively to invalidate transfers effected prior to its enactment, and the impugned proceedings are, in any case, barred by limitation. He further submitted that even if Section 49(5) is assumed to apply, it prescribes a strict limitation of twelve years, which is mandatory and not extendable. This position stands settled in Kusum Devi & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors1. and reaffirmed in Krishna Kumar Dodrajka & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.2 He had also submitted that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is inapplicable to such original proceedings. Further, the reliance on Section 17 of the Limitation Act on the ground of fraud is misconceived. In view of Section 230 of the Tenancy Act, the Limitation Act applies only to the extent it is not inconsistent. Since Section 49(5) expressly provides that limitation runs from the date of 1 MANU/JH/0372/2004 2 MANU/JH/0187/2017 8 consent, invocation of Section 17 is excluded. Consequently, the impugned proceedings are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.

9. Learned counsel submitted that even assuming, without admitting, any element of fraud, the Respondents had clear knowledge of the petitioners’ ancestor’s title since 1991–92, when proceedings under Section 49 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 were instituted by Sukra Pahan and Somra Pahan. It was further submitted that a subsequent application by Somra Pahan, being SAR Case No. 276 of 2002-03, was dismissed on 23.07.2002 in light of findings in CWJC No. 2321 of 1991 (R). Despite such knowledge, no proceedings were initiated within the prescribed period thereafter. In these circumstances, Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be invoked, as the Respondents failed to act within three years from the date of knowledge. The plea of fraud is thus untenable and does not extend limitation. He further submitted impugned proceedings are barred by res judicata. Earlier proceedings under Sections 71A and 49(5) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, initiated by the petitioners’ ancestor, were decided in his favour, and the same issue cannot be reopened. The applicability of res judicata to such proceedings stands 9 affirmed in Jagan Bediya & Ors. v. Kameshwar Narayan Singh & Ors.3 He further submitted that the Respondents’ case rests on the plea that the permission granted by the Deputy Commissioner falls outside Section 49 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. The Petitioner relies on the provision as it stood at the relevant time, when permission could be granted upon existence of “reasonable cause,” an inclusive expression wide enough to cover purposes such as purchase of cattle. It was further argued that such permission cannot be reopened after expiry of twelve years. Moreover, the State cannot simultaneously allege that the permission was contrary to legislative intent and also obtained by fraud; such inconsistent stands are barred by the doctrine of approbate and reprobate. He submitted that Section 49 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 clearly mandates that annulment of transfer can be made only within twelve years from the date of transfer. The provision being unambiguous, no resort to legislative intent is required. He further submitted that the Respondents’ claim of possession is wholly false and unsupported by any document, particularly for the period 3 MANU/JH/0703/2010 10 1959–2019. Their own application under Section 71A for recovery of possession, which was dismissed in favour of the Petitioner, demolishes such claim. Further, rent receipts issued in favour of the Petitioner and mutation entries constitute strong prima facie proof of possession. He further submitted that forcible dispossession can be remedied in writ jurisdiction. In the case of Waqf Alalaulad v. Sundardas Daulatram & Sons,4 as affirmed in the case of Union Club, Dhanbad v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.,5 it has been held that possession taken by force can be restored. In the present case, the Petitioner was illegally dispossessed, and is therefore entitled to restoration. He finally submitted that the Respondents, knowing that their remedy lay before the Civil Court, had instituted Original Suit No. 657 of 2018, which has since abated. During its pendency, they initiated the present proceedings as a circuitous method to secure possession, amounting to forum shopping. Such conduct is a clear abuse of process. In the case of V. Anima Malar v. S. Aadhavan & Ors.6 and in the case of Neelam Manmohan Attavar v. Manmohan Attavar,7 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has deprecated 4 MANU/UP/1008/1996 5 Civil Appeal No. 6626 of 2012 6 MANU/SC/0111/2026 7 MANU/SC/0055/2021 11 parallel and repeated proceedings on the same cause. Accordingly, he prayed that the impugned proceedings, having been initiated during pendency of the suit and after dismissal of earlier claims, are vitiated by forum hunting and liable to be set aside. Submission on Behalf of State

10. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the District Administration, Ranchi, through the Circle Officer, Bargain, along with the Circle Inspector, Bargain and the Revenue Sub-Inspector, Booty Village, undertook a detailed verification of the revenue records and conducted a local enquiry with respect to the land and in question. Upon such physical verification and record inspection, enquiry reports were submitted vide Letter No. 1047(ii) dated 27.11.2021 and Letter No. 55(ii) dated 02.02.2026, which reveal the following material facts: (A) That the land in question is in actual physical possession of the legal heirs and successors of the recorded raiyat, namely Bipta Pahan, S/o Shital Pahan. (B) That the name of Bipta Pahan stands duly recorded in Volume-I, Page 79 of Register-II, wherein the change of authority column records fixation of rent vide Case No. 27 R8/1959-60 dated 09.11.1959. The records further reflect continuous realization of rent from the year 1955-56 up to 1995-96 pursuant to order dated 11.09.1995 of the Circle Officer, and thereafter, rent realization is reflected in the offline Register-II up to 2014-15 and in the online Register-II up to 2020-21. (C) That although the names of the writ petitioners, namely Harish Munjal and Prakash Munjal, find mention in Volume-V, 12 Page 1 of Register-II pursuant to orders passed in W.P.(C) No. 5100 of 2004 and consequential administrative directions, and rent entries exist in their favour, the enquiry categorically records that they have never been in actual physical possession of the land. (D) That similarly, the name of one Jitendra Bahadur Johar has been entered in Register-II (Volume-VI, Page 71) pursuant to Mutation Case No. 5678 R 27/07-08, and though rent realization entries exist in his favour for certain periods, the enquiry report clearly records that he too is not in possession of the land.

11. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that Sanjay Pahan, S/o Somra Pahan (Respondent No. 9 in W.P.(C) No. 1510 of 2021), filed an application before the competent authority asserting that the land measuring about

2.90 acres is his Khatiani raiyati land is under threat from land mafias, pursuant to which Misc. Case No. 267 of 2020 was initiated under Section 49(5) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. It was submitted that the land is recorded as Kaimi Raiyati in the name of Bipta Pahan, S/o Shital Pahan, a member of the Munda (Scheduled Tribe) community, and thus its transfer is strictly regulated by Sections 46 to 49 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. The land, admeasuring about 2.90 acres, stands recorded under Khata No. 79, Village Booty, Thana No. 182 (Sadar), and was originally recorded in the Survey Record of Rights (circa 1935) in the name of Bipta Pahan as raiyat. It was further submitted that post vesting under 13 the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, Bipta Pahan was found in peaceful possession and cultivation of the land, and his name was duly entered in the revenue records with continuous rent payment. His possession remained undisturbed, and upon his death, the land devolved upon his sons, Ram Pahan and Somra Pahan, and thereafter exclusively upon Somra Pahan, who continued possession. It was further contended that the alleged permission granted by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in 1959–60 under Section 49 of the CNT Act was obtained without the knowledge of Somra Pahan, and despite such alleged transfer, the raiyats and their successors remained in uninterrupted possession. It was only in the year 2018 that the respondents came to know of such transaction, whereupon Somra Pahan instituted Original Suit No. 657 of 2018 seeking declaration of the sale deed dated 02.12.1959 as null and void on grounds of fraud. The said suit, having abated due to the demise of the plaintiffs, is now sought to be restored by filing Civil Misc. Case No. 16 of 2026, which is pending consideration before the competent civil court.

12. Learned Counsel vehemently submitted that the alleged permission granted by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in 1959–60 under Section 49 of the Chotanagpur 14 Tenancy Act, 1908 was obtained by fraud and is legally unsustainable and the same is wholly without jurisdiction. It was contended that Section 49 permits transfer of tribal land only for specified purposes such as charitable, religious or educational use, which is admittedly not the case herein, as the recorded purpose for the purchase of bullocks does not fall within the permissible categories. It was further submitted that the revenue enquiry reports vide Letter No. 1047(ii) dated 27.11.2021 and Letter No. 55(ii) dated 02.02.2026 conclusively establish that the raiyats and their legal heirs have remained in continuous and undisputed possession of the land, and that the writ petitioners were never in possession. It was argued that the entire claim of the writ petitioners is founded upon fraudulent and void transactions in violation of the CNT Act, 1908, and that mutation entries or issuance of rent receipts pursuant to W.P.(C) No. 5100 of 2004 do not confer any title or possession. Reliance was placed on Meghmala v. G. Narasimha Reddy8 to submit that no relief can be granted to perpetuate fraud. It was lastly submitted that the present writ petition, seeking restoration of possession, involves a private civil 8 (2010) 8 SCC 383 15 dispute and is not maintainable under Article 226, as held in Roshina T. v. Abdul Azeez K.T.9 He finally submitted that the present dispute involves complex questions of fact, title and possession, which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, and must be relegated to the competent civil court, the writ forum being inappropriate for such determination. Submission on behalf of Private Respondent

13. Learned Counsel for the Private Respondent submitted that the petitioners’ claim is wholly misconceived and founded upon a sale deed dated 02.12.1959 which is void ab initio, as the alleged executant, Somra Pahan, had no right, title or interest over the land at the relevant time, his father being the recorded tenant, and further, he was a minor, thereby rendering the transaction legally invalid. He further submitted that the said transaction is vitiated by gross illegality, as no lawful guardian was appointed for Ram Pahan, who was admittedly a minor and incapacitated, making the execution of the deed unsustainable in law.

14. Learned Counsel submitted that the answering 9 (2019) 2 SCC 329 16 respondents have already instituted Original Suit No. 657 of 2018 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-IX, Ranchi seeking declaration of title and cancellation of the sale deed, and upon abatement due to unavoidable circumstances, have filed Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 16 of 2026 for restoration, which is presently pending, thus clearly establishing that the dispute is civil in nature and sub judice. He further submitted that the respondents are in long, continuous possession of the land, duly supported by State records, Register-II entries and rent receipts in the name of Bipta Pahan. He further submitted that the documents relied upon by the petitioners are seriously disputed and appear to be forged and fabricated, as even the family members of Somra Pahan have denied execution of any such documents, and the alleged S.A.R. Case No. 185 of 1991 and CWJC No. 2321 of 1991 are not binding upon the answering respondents.

15. In regard to the alleged permission under Section 49 of the C.N.T. Act learned counsel submitted that the permission is itself illegal, as the purpose disclosed does not fall within permissible categories, thereby rendering the entire transaction void. To buttress his argument he relied upon Mandu Prakhand Sahakari Grih Nirman Sahyog 17 Samiti Limited v. State of Bihar10 wherein this Court has held that the reasonable and sufficient purpose under section 49 includes the use of land for any charitable, religious and educational purpose or any other purpose, which the State Government may by general or special order declared to be a public purpose and if the transfer was not for the said purpose then, the said permission deemed to be rejected. He further submitted that the writ petition being W.P (C) No. 1510 of 2021 seeking restoration of possession and adjudication of title is not maintainable under Article 226, in view of settled law laid down in Roshina T. v. Abdul Azeez K.T. (supra) and Shri Sohan Lal v. Union of India.11 Analysis

16. After hearing both the parties and perusal of the materials on record, it transpires that the fulcrum of this case is the order dated 13 November 1959, by which the Deputy Commissioner accorded permission to sell the subject land purportedly in terms of section 49 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, on an application made by Ram Pahan and Somra Pahan in favour of late Jiwan Lal, the ancestor of the present petitioners. Consequent thereto, 10 (2004) 1 JLJR 260 11 1957 SCC Online SC 39 18 a sale deed was executed in December 1959. The petitioner’s case is entirely founded on this order.

17. In the application filed by Ram Pahan and Somra Pahan, permission was sought to sell the land on the ground that they have among themselves, 32.08 acres of land and some of their paddy lands have been mortgaged and hence they want to dispose their Tanr lands in order to release their paddy lands from mortgage and further that they also propose to purchase bullocks. The Deputy Commissioner accepted the application and held that the purposes for sale appear to be reasonable and consequently, on the basis of the recommendations made by his subordinate officials sanctioned transfer of the subject lands by the applicants to the ancestor of the present petitioners.

18. Section 49 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, prior to its amendment and as it stood in the year 1959, permitted an occupancy or any member of Bhuinhari family to transfer his holding or tenure, or any part thereof for any reasonable and sufficient purpose. Subsection (2) of section 49 set out what the expression “reasonable and sufficient purposes” would include, which are as follows:- a) In the case of a member of Bhuinhari family, but not in the case of an occupancy raiyat, building purposes, generally; b) In any case, the use of land for any charitable, religious, or educational purpose, or for any other purpose, which the state government may, by general or special order, declare to be 19 public purposes or for the purposes of manufacturer or irrigation or as building ground for any such purpose, or for access to land used or required for any such purpose, and c) In any case, the use of the land for the purpose of mining or for any other purposes, which the state government may, by notification, declared to be subsidiary there two or four access to land used or required for any such purpose.

19. Section 49 CNT carves out exceptions from the restrictions imposed by the preceding sections. Provisions of section 49 CNT grant exemptions. It is well settled that exemption / exception provisions must be construed strictly [see Sea Customs Act, s. 20(2), In re: AIR 1963 SC 1760].

20. In Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar,12 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the preamble of CNT Act suggests that it was a law to amend and consolidate certain Acts relating to the law of landlord and tenant and the settlement of rent in Chota Nagpur.

21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amrendra Pratap Singh v. Tej Bahadur Prajapati13 while dealing with a case involving interpretation of the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (by Scheduled Tribes) Regulations, 1956, the purpose of which is akin to the CNT Act, held as follows: “15. Tribal areas have their own problems. Tribals are historically weaker sections of the society. They need the protection of the laws as they are gullible and fall prey to the tactics of unscrupulous people, and are susceptible to exploitation on account of their innocence, poverty and backwardness extending over centuries. The Constitution of India and the laws made thereunder treat tribals and tribal areas separately wherever