KESHO SAO Vs. ADDITIONAL MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ applicant the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders passed by the respondents/Authorities whereby the land question has been ordered to be restored in favour of respondent nos. 5 and under the provisions of Section 46(4A) the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (hereafter referred as the said Act). The facts of the case lie in the campus. One Shankari Mundain filed application for restoration of lands various plots of Khata no. 32 against the present petitioners and three others her application she claimed that she was absolute owner of the land of Khata no consisting of 13 plots having total area 6.33 acres situated in village Marg police station Ramgarh in the district Hazaribagh and alleged that petitioners legally dispossessed her about 5 to years ago. The said applicator was registered as Land Restoration O.(sic) No. 13 of 1977-78 by the Land Reform Deputy Collector, Hazaribagh So present petitioners are concerned respondents claimed restoration or the acres of land of various plots of Khata 32. Petitioner's case is that on receipt notice they appeared and filed their show cause stating inter-alia that the record tenant namely Lachuwa Munda had abandoned the lands about 30/35 years age. The fore-fathers of the petitioners has taken the lands in their possession and the proved the same and began to cultivate.

(2.) Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel firstly submitted that application for restoration U/s 46(4A) of the said Act was barred by limitation inasmuch as admittedly in compromise decree the respondents admitted the possession of the petitioners over the land in question. Learned counsel submitted that recorded tenant abandoned the lands and the petitioners came in possession of the same much before the filing of the Title Suit. According to the learned counsel the application for restoration having been filed much after the expiry of 12 years, the same ought to have been disallowed by the respondents. On the other hand Mr. S.N. Lal, learned counsel for the respondents firstly submitted that at the initial stage that is before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector petitioners took defence that they got the lands by virtue of a compromise decree passed in Partition Suit. Subsequently at the belated stage petitioners changed their stand and took their defence that the land was abandoned. Learned counsel submitted that no material whatsoever was produced by the petitioners before the authorities to substantiate that they were in possession immediately after the land was abandoned by the recorded tenant.

(3.) From perusal of the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector it appears that the petitioners in their objection claimed their title and possession on the basis of compromise decree passed in Title Suit No. 1673/1968. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector therefore rightly held that the compromise decree was collusive one and even if the petitioners acquired title and possession by virtue of compromise decree of the year 1968, restoration application having been filed in 1977, the same cannot be said to be barred by limitation. Similarly from perusal of the appellate order petitioners took the stand that the land was abandoned by the recorded tenant Lachuwa Munda and thereafter petitioners came in possession of the said land. There is no pleading that the petitioners are the landlords and after the alleged abandonment they resumed the land and came in possession of the same. Moreover, no material has been produced by the petitioners to substantiate the case of abandonment as contemplated u/s 73 of the Act nor there is any evidence in support of the case of the petitioners that they were in possession of the land much before 1968. In that view of the matter, I am of the definite opinion that the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities are legal and justified. It is well settled that compromise decree passed by Civil Court declaring title and possession of a party who is not a member of Schedule Tribe in respect of land of recorded raiyat belonging to member of Schedule Tribe cannot be given effect to and such decree will amount to dispossessing the raiyat by fraudulent method. Suffice it to refer only one Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of "Ramnarain Sah vs. State of Bihar (1975, BBCJ-433). Their Lordship after considering earlier Full Bench decisions have observed as under: