BISRAOI SAHU Vs. BHAIRO ORAON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders as contained in Annexures 1,2 and 3 to the writ petition passed by respondent Nos. 4, 3 and 2 respectively. By reason of the aforementioned orders the said respondents directed that the lands bearing plot No. 647 appertaining to khatian No. 148 measuring an area of 81 decimals of plot Nos. 778 of village Karge, P. S. Mandar, District Ranchi be resorted in favour of respondent No.1 in purported exercise of their power conferred under Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act.

(2.) In this case, the facts are short and not in dispute. On 14-2-1945, the fattier of respondent No. 1 surrendered the aforementioned lands in favour of landlords and, thereafter a fresh settlement was granted by the landlord in favour of petitioner, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 while pasting orders as contained in Annexures 2 and 3 to the writ petition held that the settlement having been made with a period of one month from the date of surrender, the surrender and settlement is part of same transaction and as such the same being a transfer having been made in contravention of the provisions of section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, respondent No. 1 was entitled to get lands restored in his favour in terms of the provisions of Section 71-A thereof. However, as this writ petition is being disposed of on a short question, I need not consider the question as to whether surrender made on 14-2-1945 and the subsequent settle- ment dated 10-3-l945 was a part of the same transaction or not. Suffice it to say that only because a settlement is made after one month or even after a few days of the surrender, it does not necessarily mean that the surrender and the settlement would form part of the same transaction. The question as to whether a surrender and subsequent settlement would form part of the same transaction or not, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and has got to be decided on the basis of materials on record. However, in the instant case, it appears that respondent No. 4 refused to entertain the revision only on the ground that there were concurrent findings of act by the courts below.

(3.) The power of revision is contained in Section 217 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. Section 217 reads as follows : "Bar to further appeals with proviso for revision by Board or Commissioner Orders passed by the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner in appeals preferred under Section 215 shall not be open to soy further appeal : But the Board or (in the case of appeal decided by the Deputy Commissioner), the Commissioner any call for the case and pass such orders thereon as it or he may think proper."