AMIN MAHTO Vs. COMMISSIONER SOUTH CHOTANAGPUR DIVI-SION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioner challenges orders dated 11/1/1980 and 8/2/1980 as contained in Annexures 4 and 5 passed by respondent No. 2 and 1 respectively whereby and whereunder the said respondents, in purported exercise of their power conferred upon them under Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, directed that the lands in question bs restored in favour of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and further directed that the said respondents pay compensation to the petitioner which may be determined in accordance with law, in view of the fact that the petitioner was in possession of the land in question for a period of more than 30 years.

(2.) Mr. P. K. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, sub-mitted that from the order passed by the respndent No. 3 it would appear that the application filed by the respondents No. 4 to 7 was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was in illegal possession.

(3.) However, the respondent No. 2, the appellate authority and the respondent No. 1, the revisional authority in my opinion, rightly held that the petitioner was an under-raiyat. This fact would be borne from the fact that even in the record of right it has been mentioned that the land in question which was recorded in the name of the predecessor in-interes of the respondents No. 4 to 7, were in possession of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner on payment of annual salami of Rs 10. Such an arrangement must be held to be a transfer within the meaning of the provision ol Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. For the purpose of construction of Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act the word 'transfer' must be given a wide meaning. In has been no held by a Bench decision of this Court in Bina Rani Ghosh v. Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, 1983 PLJR 732 : 1985 BLJ 537 (FB).