RAM LAL TATWA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the order passed by the Commissioner, S.P. Division, Dumka dated 24.1.1989 in R.M.R.Case No. 29/1986 -87 as contained in annexure -7 and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda dt. 10.3.1998 in R.M.R.Case.No.4/1983 -84 as contained in annexure -6 and the order of the Subdivisional Officer, Godda passed in R.F.R.Case.No. 265/1978 - 79 dt. 15.6.79 as contained in annexure -5 have been challenged.

(2.) THE admitted position remains that originally the name of late Padu Tatwa was recorded in the first survey settlement in respect of plot No. 531 measuring three Bighas, 9 Kathas and 16 Dhurs in a Jamabandi No. 51 of village Meharma within the district of Santhal Parganas. Padu Tatwa died leaving behind two sons, namely, Suri Tatwa and Horil Tatwa. Chaturi Tatwa happens to be the grand son of original recorded royati. Respondent No. 5 Horil Tatwa filed a petition before the Subdivisional Officer, Godda under Sections 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Supplementary Provisions Act, 1949 for reversion of lands in his favour alleging that dispossession was made by the petitioners after coming into force of the Act and the lands were agricultural lands. On the basis of that petition of respondent No.5 a notice was issued to the petitioner for showing cause as to why the prayer of respondent No.5 should not be allowed. Reply to the showcause was filed by the petitioner stating, inter alia, that by a Kurfanama dt. 1.9.1937 he was put to possession by the recorded tenant and since then he remained in possession over the same and that such possession of the petitioner had never been challenged during the life time of the recorded tenant or his sons. One of the sons of the recorded tenant, namely, Suri Tatwa, who was living conjointly with the respondent No.5 and having the status of Karta of the family had filed Title Suit No. 109/1959 before the Deputy Collector, Godda, as contemplated under the Act, for evicting the petitioner but the said eviction proceeding was dismissed for default long back on 19.12.1959 (annexure -2) and against the dismissal order no steps were taken by Suri Tatwa or the respondent No. 5 but suddenly, the petition was filed u/s. 20 of the Act. On receipt of the reply to the show - cause it appears from the order - sheet of the SDO, as contained in annexure -5, that no opportunity was given to either of the parties to adduce evidence either documentary or oral in support of their respective claims but fixed for passing of the order and, ultimately, after some adjournment the S.D.O. passed an order evicting the petitioner from his possession and allowing the prayer of respondent No.5 because of his pre -occupation vide order dt. 15.6.1979. The order was passed behind the back of the petitioner as alleged by him and, as such, he could not file appeal in time and after the limitation period a revision petition was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner which was also dismissed vide order dt. 10.3.1986 as contained in annexure -6. Against that order the petitioner moved in revision before the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka and the same was also rejected vide order dt. 24.1.1989 as contained in annexure - 7.

(3.) IN that view of the matter, the orders contained in annexure -5, 6, and 7 are hereby quashed and the matter is sent back to the S.D.O., Godda, for deciding the matter afresh by giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. It is made clear that on receipt of a copy of this order he shall give notice to both the parties and then proceed afresh without being prejudiced by his earlier order passed.