R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties.
(2.) THE Interpretation of Section 46(1)(c) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is the main issue in this case. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 18.10.1996, passed by the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh in Misc. Appeal No.93 of 1993 (Annexure 11). The Commissioner set aside the order dated 18.3.1991, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, granting permission under Section 46(1)(c) of the CNT Act, while allowing the appeal.
(3.) PETITIONERS case is as follows : The petitioner No. 2 by three registered sale deeds dated 9.2.1967 and the fourth dated 14.12.1966 purchased lands from the recorded raiyats or their heirs in plot No. 999, under Khata No. 44 and plot No. 1012, under Khata No. 27 and plot No. 1014, under Khata No. 16 of village Sewta. The said vendors were members of the Scheduled Castes and not Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner No. 2 is a member of Scheduled Tribe. For abundant precaution, petitioner No. 2 made an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh under Section 46(1)(c) for a permission to sell about 3.13 acres of land in favour of petitioner No. 1, Society, which was registered as Permission Case No. 2/1991. The said permission was granted by the Deputy Commissioner by order dated 18.3.1991. Petitioner No. 2 by a registered sale -deed dated 2.8.1991 sold 3.13 acres of land in favour of petitioner No. 1 Petitioner No. 2 is also a member of petitioner No. 1 and her son is the President of the petitioner No. 1 -Society. It is admitted at the bar that all the members of petitioner No. 1 do not belong to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. Petitioner No. 1 sold and transferred lands in favour of its members by executing 35 registered sale -deeds, upon which most of them have constructed their residential buildings. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 18.3.1993 recalled his order dated 18.1.1991 suo motu. The petitioners challenged the said order dated 18.3.1993 (Annexure 8) vide CWJC No. 1684 of 1993 (R), which was disposed of on 30.7.1993 by quashing the said order on the ground that no power of review could be shown to the Court. However, this Court clarified that it will be open for the respondents to take appropriate steps in accordance with law for setting aside the said order dated 18.3.1993. The State Government then preferred an appeal on 16.12.1993 along with a petition for condonation of delay. Oh 6.1.1994, the said appeal was admitted without hearing the petitioners on the question of limitation. Section 46(1)(c) of the Act provides for grant of permission to any Co -operative Society and the same was rightly granted by the Deputy Commissioner on 18.3.1991. Under Section 46(2), the transfer by a raiyat under Sub -section (1) is binding on the landlord and the State being landlord was bound by the said transfer and therefore it could not file the said appeal. No case of fraud was made out and therefore the appeal was not maintainable under Section 215(5). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisions which interferes with the right to property and its transfer has to be strictly construed. The word has used in the last portion of Section 46(c) is in singular form and therefore it relates only to the Government Company or Corporation. He admitted that there is no provision for permission under Section 41(1)(c) under which the application was made, but he submitted that the permission granted by the Deputy Commissioner on 18.1.1991 will be deemed to be under Section 49 of the Act and therefore, only the State Government and not the Commissioner, can interfere with it.;