BHAGWANDAS Vs. KOKA PAHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application filed under Artiles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 19th March, 1975 passed by Respondent No. 4 (Annexure 2), order dated 30th October 1975 passed by Respondent No. 5 (Annexure 3) and order dated 7th January, 1975 passed by Respondent No 6 (Annexure 4) by which the land in question has been ordered to be restored to Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

(2.) Khata No. 30 of village Baheya, P. S. Angara in the district of Ranchi was recorded in the name of Charan Pahan who left behind three sons, Koka Pahan, Ledua Munda and Bhandari Munda. The respondent claims to be the heirs of the recorded tenant Charan Pahan. On report submitted by the Circle Inspector Angara, a proceeding under Section 7i-A of the Chota- nagpur Tenancy Act (the Act") was drawn up by Respondent No. 4 for restoration of plot Nos. 745, 532 and 902 of the said khata No. 30 to Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Notice was served on the petitioner who filed his show cause in which he inter alia contended that there was no transfer of the said three plots in contravention of Section 46 of the Act or in any other provision of the Act and no order could be passed under Section 71-A of the Act. Respondent No. 4 by Annexure 3 held that it was a case of transfer in contravention of the provision of the Act and therefore liable to be restored under Section 71-A of the Act. In appeal the order was confirmed by Respondent No. 5 and the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by Respondent No. 6.

(3.) Mr. V.S. Prasad learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the case of the petitioner in its show cause as will appear from Annexure 2, is that the sons of the recorded tenant surrendered the said plot to the ex-landlord by registered document on 13th August, 1951. On 1st December, 1951 the ex-landlord settled these plots with the petitioners who on 8th December, 1952 executed and registered a kabuliyatJin respect of th4se plots in favour of the ex-landlord. The petitioner was paying rent and was in possession of the land. He submitted that it is admitted case that the heirs of the recorded raiyat surrendered the land to the ex-landlord. He submitted that surrender as envisaged under Section 72 of the Act is not a transfer and therefore not covered by Section 71-A of the Act Mr. Sahai Sinha submitted that the surrender was made without obtaining previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner in writing and therefore surrender was in contravention of Section 72 of the Act. He further submitted that the surrender as envisaged under the Act is a transfer, and therefore, the land could have been restored under Section 71-A of the Act.