BUKAN ANSARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this application have prayed for quashing the order dated 27-7-1987 passed by respondent No. 2 in Ranchi Revenue Revision No. 105 of 1982 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition whereby and whereunder the said learned court allowed the revision application filed by respondents No. 5 and 6 against an order dated 27-7-1982 passed by respondent No. 3 in S.A.R. Appeal Nos. 129-R-15 of 1981-82, as contained in Annexure-4, which in turn arose out of an order dated 25-8-1981 passed by respondent No. 4, as contained in Annexure-3 in S.A.R. Case No. 8 of 1980-81.

(2.) Respondent No. 6 and the father of respondent No. 5 filed an application before respondent No. 4 for restoration of four plots being Plots No. 301, 304, 305 and 308 appertaining to Khata No. 2 of village Bukru. On the said application S.A.R. Case No. 114 of 1976 was registered. The petitioners having been noticed filed their show cause alleging therein that a deed of Zerpesgi was executed in the year 1883 and 1892 i.e. prior to the coming into force of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (the Act). The respondent No. 4 allowed the said application. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the said order which was numbered as S.A.R. Appeal No. 836 of 1976-77 and the said appeal was allowed with regard to Plot Nos. 304 and 303. No revision was filed against the said appellate order. Another application was filed by respondent No. 6 in respect of Plot Nos. 304 and 308 wherein also the petitioners filed show cause having been directed to do so. By an order dated 25-5-1981, as contained in Annexure-3 to this writ application, lands in question were directed to be restored in favour of respondent No. 6, The petitioners preferred an appeal against the said order which was allowed by the appellate court, by order dated 27-7-1982 as contained in Annexure-4. Respondent No. 6 filed a revision application which was numbered as Ranchi Revenue Revision No. 105 of 1982 and by reason of the impugned order as contained in Annexure 5, the said application has been allowed.

(3.) Mr. Debi Prasad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that respondent No. 2 in passing the impugned order as contained in Annexure 5 failed to take into consideration the effect of the order passed by respondent No. 3 in Appeal No. 836 of 1976-77, by reason whereof the private respondents application for restoration of the land was rejected. It was further submitted that in any view of the matter the said application for restoration was barred by limitation.