IRKUSH TOPPO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 8 -5 -92 passed by the respondent No. 5, the Sub -Divisional Officer, Gumla in Eviction Suit No. 1/92 whereby an order of eviction has been passed under the provisions of Government Premises (Rent, Recovery and Eviction) Act, 1956 and also the order dated 17 -8 -92 passed by respondent No. 4, the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla confirming the order of respondent No. 5 and dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner.

(2.) Petitioners' case is that the land appertaining to khata No. 867, plot No. 7906 measuring an area of 22 decimals belonged to one Mahangu Oraon, grand father of petitioner No. 2 who was recorded tenant in respect of the aforesaid land. It is stated that a house was constructed by Mahangu Oraon and after his death, the land and the house was inherited by petitioner No. 2. Petitioners' further case is that petitioner No. 1 was inducted as a tenant by petitioner No. 2 in the said premises and the petitioner No. 1 has been staying their along with his family members. It is contended that the petitioner No. 2 filed a case for restoration under the provisions of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (shortly CNT Act) being S.A.R. Case No. 1/91 and by an order dated 28 -3 -91 the land has been directed to be restored in favour of petitioner No, 2. The petitioners state that they were shocked and surprised to receive a notice whereby it was intimated that the petitioner No. 1 is in unauthorised occupation, of the premises in question which is the Government land and they should file show cause as to why an order of eviction should not be passed against them. A proceeding was initiated as Eviction case No. 1/92. Petitioners said to have appeared and filed show cause stating, inter alia, that it is riot a Government premises and, as such, the proceeding is not maintainable. In support of their stand, the petitioners filed all relevant documents including the khatiyan to show that the premises belonged to petitioner No, 2 but in spite of the aforesaid fact respondent No, 5 passed the impugned order for eviction of petitioner No. 1 from the premises. The petitioners, thereafter, filed an appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 13/92 but the same was dismissed.

(3.) A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 stating, inter alia, that the recorded tenant of the land in question were the ancestors of petitioner No. 2, Bhadu Oraon and petitioner No. 1 was never inducted in the house, rather, he is in unauthorised obssession. The respondents denied and disputed the title of the petitioners over the land in question. It is stated that the land in question was acquired by the Government in 1940 at the expenses of Ranchi District Board for public purposes and for the purpose of construction of subordinate quarters. The Ranchi District Board constructed a Dak Bunglow at the recommendation of the Sectional Officer of the Ranchi District Board. Subsequently, the properly was transferred to the District Development Com -missioner -cum -Secretary of the Zila Parishad, Gumla. Lastly, it is stated that neither the Zila Parishad nor the State of Bihar was made a party in the restoration proceeding which was a collusive proceeding in order to create evidence.