JAI MANGAL ORAON Vs. MIRA NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay condoned and leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 1463-64/98.

(2.) These matters are dealt with together since they involve common and identical issues and submissions have also been made by the counsel in common. To properly appreciate the issues raised, the skeleton of facts, which led to the filing of the above appeals, would be necessary. Civil Appeal No. 12493 of 1996

(3.) The lands in question forming part of a larger extent originally stood recorded in the name of late Nanda Oraon, a member of the Scheduled Tribe. On 15-1-1942, Nanda Oraon was said to have executed a registered deed of surrender in favour of the landlord since he failed to and could not raise any crop on the land. The landlord, who thus came into possession of the land subsequently by a registered deed dated 16-2-1942 along with his co-sharers, settled the land permanently in favour of one Satish Chandra Baul. Part of the land settled in favour of Satish Chandra Baul was said to have been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and compensation was also claimed and paid to the said person. The remaining extent was said to have been sold by the descendants of Satish Chandra Baul to various persons at different points of time during the year 1971-72. The first respondent claimed to have purchased under a registered sale deed dated 12-8-1971, 5 kathas of land being a portion of plot No. 1217 which was also shown as sub plot No. 1217/16. She got her name mutated in the office of the Circle Officer, Ranchi, by an order dated 13-3-1973 and after obtaining the necessary sanction, raised construction, thereon.