Jharkhand High Court rules that revenue suits under Section 87 of the CNT Act must be filed within three months of record publication; delay cannot be condoned

News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 37

Ranchi, January 10, 2026 : The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that a suit seeking rectification of finally published record-of-rights under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act cannot be entertained if it is filed beyond the statutory limitation period, even if a revenue officer has condoned the delay. The Court held that such condonation is without jurisdiction and contrary to law.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary on January 8, 2026, while deciding Second Appeal No. 94 of 2019 along with Second Appeal No. 114 of 2019. Both appeals arose from a common judgment passed by the Principal District Judge, Dhanbad, which had reversed the dismissal of a revenue suit filed for correction of entries in the revisional survey record.

The dispute related to land in Mouza Bada Pichari under Govindpur Circle in Dhanbad district. The plaintiffs had approached the Revenue Officer in March 2011 under Section 87 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, seeking correction of entries in the record-of-rights that had been finally published on May 15, 2001. Along with the suit, an application was filed seeking condonation of nearly ten years’ delay.

The Revenue Officer condoned the delay through a brief order and proceeded to hear the matter. However, the suit was ultimately dismissed. On appeal, the Principal District Judge held that the limitation period should be reckoned from the date of knowledge of the alleged error and not from the date of publication, and accordingly allowed the appeal, directing rectification of the record-of-rights subject to the outcome of pending civil suits.

Challenging this decision, the State of Jharkhand and private parties argued before the High Court that Section 87 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act clearly mandates that a suit must be filed within three months from the date of final publication of the record-of-rights. It was further contended that the Limitation Act does not permit condonation of delay in suits, and therefore the Revenue Officer lacked jurisdiction to entertain the case at all.

After examining the statutory scheme and earlier precedents, the High Court agreed with the appellants. The Court observed that Section 87 provides a special and time-bound remedy, and once the limitation period expires, the Revenue Officer has no power to revive the claim. It reiterated that Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies only to appeals and applications, not to suits, and therefore cannot be invoked to condone delay in proceedings under Section 87 of the CNT Act.

The Court also rejected the argument that limitation should run from the date of knowledge. It held that under the CNT Act, the cause of action arises on final publication of the record-of-rights itself, and not on the date when a party claims to have discovered an error. Allowing otherwise would defeat the legislative intent of finality attached to revenue records.

On the issue of notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court noted that the State had specifically raised this objection. While the suit itself was held to be barred by limitation, the Court observed that proceedings under the CNT Act are treated as suits between parties, reinforcing the mandatory nature of statutory requirements when the State is impleaded.

In conclusion, the High Court set aside the appellate court’s judgment and restored the dismissal of the revenue suit, holding that the proceedings initiated after nearly a decade were not maintainable in law. The Court clarified that disputes regarding title or alleged fraud in sale deeds could still be adjudicated by competent civil courts in pending title suits, but revenue authorities cannot bypass statutory limitation to reopen settled records.

Case Reference: S.A. No. 94 of 2019 with S.A. No. 114 of 2019, The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad Collectorate, Dhanbad and Another vs. Krishna Singh @ Dr. Sri Krishna Singh and Others; Counsels: For the Appellant-State: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, SC-I; For the Appellants (in S.A. No. 114 of 2019): Ms. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate; For LR of Respondent No. 38: Mr. Nityanand Prasad Choudhary, Advocate; For Respondent No. 39: Mr. Sudarshan Shrivastava and Mr. Sidharth Sudhanshu, Advocates; For Respondent No. 26: Ms. Puja Agarwal, Advocate; For Respondent No. 1 (in S.A. No. 94 of 2019): Mr. Manjul Prasad, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha and Mr. Aman Kedia, Advocates.