CHHABI RANI SAHOO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaribagh, respondent No. 3, dated 22/23rd August, 1982 whereby he ordered restoration of the lands in -question in favour of respondent No. 4. It appears that the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh in appeal set aside the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector. Thereafter, a revision was preferred before the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division. In revision, the Commissioner has set aside the order of the appellate authority and restored the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector by the impugned order dated 28th February, 1984. The proceeding in which these orders were passed was one under Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act.

(2.) Respondent No. 4 filed an application before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector stating that the lands in -question, namely, lands under Khata No. 104 plot No. 397 having an area of 0.39 acres of village Korra was originally recorded in the name of his grand father. After the death of his grand father, his father came in possession of the lands in -question. Thereafter, the petitioner himself came in peaceful possession of the aforesaid lands. In the year 1960, the petitioner changed his residence from village Korra to village Pundri, and thereafter began to live at village Pundri. In the year 1971, he came to learn that the petitioner had illegally and forcibly come in possession over the land without any right, title or interest over the same. On these facts, respondent No. 4 prayed that the lands may be restored. The, aforesaid application filed by respondent No. 4 purports to be one under Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act and is dated 25th October, 1980. The petitioner herein filed his show cause before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector in which it was alleged inter alia that one Dasrath Dusadh bought the aforesaid land from the recorded tenant in the year 1940 through a registered deed of sale. He transferred it to one Sita Devi. The petitioner claimed to be the transferee from the aforesaid Sita Devi in the year 1971. It was further alleged that the land did not belong to the respondent No. 4. It is not necessary to go into that question. The grievance of the petitioner is that she had built a house over the plot in -question after submitting and getting sanctioned a house plan from the Hazaribagh Municipality.

(3.) The Land Reforms Deputy Collector by his order Annexure -3 held that there was nothing to show that the ancestor of respondent No. 4 had sold the land to Dasrath Dusadh. It had not been established that the ancestor of respondent No. 4 had sold the land to Dasrath Dusadh. He also held that it was clear that the petitioner was in peaceful possession of the lands since not more than 12 years. In this view of the matter, he directed restoration of the lands in favour of respondent No. 4.