Ranchi, Feb. 18: Ranchi deputy commissioner (DC) K.K. Soan has requested the state revenue and land reform department to amend the Chotanagpur Tenancy (CNT) Act in order to fix the timeframe within which a tribal can move court for restoration of his/her land.

Tribal land restoration cases are filed under Section of 71(A) of the CNT Act, a 102-year-old law formulated to restrain people from grabbing plots belonging to tribals. The DC’s move is said to have been prompted by confusion over the period of limitation (deadline) within which a tribal can move court under CNT Act to get back his/her land lost illegally.

While there is no timeframe for filing applications under Section 71 (A) of the CNT Act, Article 65 of the Limitation Act has fixed 30 years with respect to immovable property belonging to members of the Scheduled Tribes. But contrary to the two laws, Supreme Court in the case of Jai Mangal Oraon Vs Sithu Sahu ruled that applications could be filed within a “reasonable period” of time under the CNT Act. The judgment was delivered on July 7, 2009.

Soan’s request is based on legal opinion sought from state advocate-general Prakash Kumar Prasad, who, taking in view the CNT Act, the Limitation Act and the Supreme Court order, opined that “fixation of period of limitation can only be done by making suitable amendment in the CNT Act”.

The DC sent the letter to the revenue and land reform department on February 8. He has asked the department to take an initiative in this direction so that interests of the ST community can be protected.

Soan admitted that proper amendment in Section 71A of the CNT Act would end any complications arising due to conflict in laws. “At present, the fate of admission of cases after 30 years of transfer of immovable property of tribal depends on the discretionary power of the deputy commissioner. This is a serious matter as the use of discretionary power varies from man to man. If there is a guideline for limitation, taking decision will be easier and chances of chaos due to conflict in law will reduce,” he said.

Civil court advocates, however, said the effort would not benefit tribals as under the CNT Act, there was no limitation period. This gives the tribals opportunity to file cases for restoration of their ancestral land at any time throughout his life according to level of his awareness. “After a limitation is fixed, it will be difficult for those tribals whose awareness level is low to get justice,” a civil court lawyer, Anand Kumar Agrawal, said.

Another lawyer, Arwind Kumar Lal, agreed, saying that the move would benefit a section of influential people who have grabbed tribal land using unfair means a long time ago and were now trying to legalise the grabbing process. “Once the timeframe is fixed, many old disputed tribal plots will slip from tribals” he said.

Differing from Lal and Agrawal, public prosecutor Brahmadeo Sharma said it would help reduce litigations in court and finally, benefit the right person irrespective of his identity, that is, whether he or she is tribal or non-tribal.

“Several cases involving CNT Act are filed before the court of deputy commissioner. Some are filed with vested interest to harass the person staying peacefully on tribal land for a long time with mutual consent. After a deadline is fixed, people staying on tribal land for a long time will not be disturbed and people with vested interest will be taught a lesson,” Sharma said.