RAM CHANDAR SAHU Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT No. 5 claiming himself to be an agnate of Bechan Oraon, recorded raiyat of khata No. 58 of village Banari Guoga Toli, P.S. Bishunpur, District Ranchi, now in the District of Guoila, filed an application onto Section 71.-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (the 'Act') for restoration of land of that khata.

(2.) ACCORDING to the appellate order, as contained in Annexure-2, Bachan Oraon went to tea garden in the year 1939 and the land came in possession of Lundii Orain, wife of the brother of Bachna Uraon. Bachna Uroan was not heard of and Lundri Drain continued in possession of the land. She died without any issue and (he appellant being the nearest agnate of Bechan Uraon came in possession of the property in question. The petitioner illegally dispossessed him in 1965.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 4 by order, as detained in Annexure-1 dismissed the case. He held that an earlier case filed by RESPONDENT No. 3 was dismissed. Be also held that respondent No. 3 did not appear in Court and did not rile any paper. RESPONDENT No. 5 filed an appeal before respondent No. 3. RESPONDENT No. 3 held that the ex-landlord entered upon the land in question and treated it abandoned without complying the mandatory provision of Section 73 of the Act. As the possession of the ex-landlord was illegal, the settlement of the land in question with the petitioner by Sada Hukumnarna dated 26-3-1952 was also illegal. RESPONDENT No. 3 further held that as the petitioner was in average possession of the land in question for more than twelve years from the date of the filing of the application by respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 5 was entitled to restoration of the land if he was the heir of Bench, he was liable to pay compensation under the 3rd proviso of Section 71-A of the Act to the petitioner. He remanded the matter to respondent No. 1. The petitioner filed revision before respondent No. 1. RESPONDENT No. 1 accepted the submission made on behalf of respondent No. 5 that the petitioner had failed to prove the case of abandonment. He further held that ciaos the compensation was payable only in a case where a parson remained in adverse possession from 30 years, there was no question of payment of compensation to the petitioner. He ordered for restoration of the land in favour of respondent No. 5. The petitioner in this case her challenged the validity of Annexures-2 and 3.