ABDUL RAJJAK ALIAS RAJAK MIAN CHURIHAR Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 30.7.89 passed in Hazaribagh Land Restoration Revision No. 109 of 1987 has been impugned by the petitioner in this writ application.

(2.) The facts of the case may be briefly stated. In January, 1984 one Bisua Karamali, respondent No. 4 filed an application before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaribagh respondent No. 3 purportedly under Section 46 (4-A) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act for restoration of the possession of the lands measuring about 1.52 acres appertaining to plot Nos. 1033 and 1035 under Khata No. 1 of village Kujju, P.S. Mandu. district Hazaribagh in his favour. The said application is Annexure 1. It is stated in the petitioner that his land's were settled to him and his brother by ex-landlord in Sambat 1986 (i.e.. in the year 1929). On this application being filed, a Land Restoration Case No, 1/84 was registered. On being noticed petitioner filed a show cause contending, inter alia, that relief under Section 46 (4-A) was not available to the respondent No. 4 inasmuch as the application itself was barred by limitation and the petitioner having perfected his title by adverse possession even ingredients of Section 46 (4-A) are not applicable. Further case was that those Land were Gaijr Majarua Khas lands of the ex-landlord of which some portion was abandoned land. Those abandoned lands were reclaimed by the petitioner and by means of Hukumnama dated 5.6.1944 under Parwane No. 225 of 1944-45, the same was settle to the petitioner by the ex-landlord Petitioner continued in possession since then by paying rent to the ex-landlord and after vesting to the State of Bihar. Further, case is that the petitioner amalgamated other plots and surrounded the total area by a man height brick-wall. It is said that in the year 1969 the brother of respondent No. 4 filed.Title Suit No. 1493/69 against the petitioner in respect of the said lands but ultimately the suit was compromised on 19.12.69 in which the plaintiff, brother of respondent No. 4 admitted that the petitioner is in possession over the land in question for a period of more than 20 years. The show cause filed by the petitioner is Annexure 2.

(3.) The respondent No. 3, after considering the pleadings and documentary evidence available on records, rejected the prayer of respondent No. 4 by dismissing the said Land Restoration Case No. 1/84. The respondent No. 3 while dismissing the petition of respondent No. 4 has found that the petitioner was in possession over the lands since more than 12 years. This order dated 21.2.84 is Annexure 3. Respondent No. 4 appealed against the said order being Restoration Appeal No. 11/84 and his appeal was allowed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh respondent No. 2) by an order dated 22.7.85 directing to take necessary action for mutation of the name of the respondent No. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved the Commissioner, respondent No. 1 in Revision No. 118/85 and by an order dated 6.1.86/28.1.86, revision application was allowed and respondent No. 1 remitted the matter to the appellate authority i.e. Additional Collector for be-hearing. The revisional order is Annexure-5. On remand, respondent No. 2 dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 4 holding, inter-alia, that the case does not came within the purview of Section 46 (4-A) of the Act and the parties may get their respective plaint of settlement decided by a competent civil court. This appellate order on remand is dated 15.7.87 (Annexure 6). Again a revision application was preferred by the respondent No. 4 against the said appellate order which was registered as Land Restoration Revision No. 109/87. By the impugned order dated 31.7.89, the re visional court while allowing the appeal announced the alleged transfer of lands and directed the petitioner to restore the possession of the land in question to respondent No. 4. This order is Annexure 7 to this application.