JITU ORAON Vs. COMMISSIONER SOUTH CHOTANAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ application challenging the orders as contained in Annexure 3, 4 and 5, dated 17 -2 -1979, 3 -10 -1980 and 3 -3 -1981 passed by respondents 3, 2 and 1 respectively.

(2.) Respondent No. 4 had filed an application before respondent No. 3, as it appears from Annexures 2, 3 and 4 to the effect that although he had all along been continuing in possession of the land in question, he had been forcibly dispossessed by the petitioner sometime in the year, 1966. The petitioner who figured as opposite party in the aforementioned case appeared and stated that the land in question was taken in settlement by him from the Ex -Zamindar of the area. Respondents 1, 2 and 3 in the order impugned in the writ application held that the Hukumnama produced by the petitioner was forged and as such he could not have taken forcible possession from respondent No. 3. learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relying on the Division Bench decision of this Court in Jalpatudu v. State of Bihar, 1981 (29) B.L.J.R. 473. contended that as has been held by this Court, forcible dispossession does not come within the mischief of 'transfer' as envisaged under Section 71 -A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act.

(3.) learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4, Mr. B.B. Sinha, contended that by reason of the impugned orders, respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have clearly held that the defence of the petitioner in the said proceeding that he obtained a settlement by virtue of a Sada Hukumnama was found to be baseless and as such no orders should be passed in this writ application interfering with the orders as contained in Annexures 3, 4 and 5. Mr. B.L. Sinha further contended that the question as to whether forcible dispossession is a transfer or not is pending consideration before a Full Bench of this Court.