PANDEY ORAON Vs. RAM CHANDER SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is a member of one of the Scheduled Tribes. Appellant's ancestor was admittedly a raiyat of certain lands of which the transferor of respondent No. 1 was the landlord. On the plea that the land had been surrendered and thus resumed the transferor of respondent No. 1 alienated the same in favour of the respondent. To the provisions of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act by amendment S. 71A was added in the year 1969 which authorise possession to be recovered in three eventualities:-

(2.) A proceeding for evicting the respondent was taken by the authorities under the Act and on being satisfied that respondent No. 1 exposed himself to the liability of eviction an order was made. That gave rise to a proceeding before the High Court and ultimately the matter came before the Full Bench of the Patna High Court which held that the Act did not apply to a case of this type. There is no dispute that the respondent No. 1 has failed to establish resumption of the property by his transferor. The plea that the respondent had perfected title by long possession has also not been made out.

(3.) The only question for consideration is as to whether a transfer of the type involved in this case comes within the ambit of S. 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. As we have already pointed out three eventualities are provided in S. 71A of the Act, where the provision can be called into action. They are: