PAIKA MURMU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18th March, 2009 passed in W.P. (C) No. 6266 of 2007 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of restoration passed by the authorities.

(2.) It appears that the appellants, who were Members of Scheduled Tribes, transferred the land in question in favour of the respondent after obtaining permission of the Deputy Commissioner as required under Section 49 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (in short 'CNT Act'). The permission was accorded by the Deputy Commissioner on 30.12.1984. After the aforesaid transfer, the respondent got its name mutated and came in possession of the land. After about 22 years, the appellants filed an application before the Additional Collector, Dhanbad for restoration of land on the ground that the respondent failed to comply the terms and conditions fixed by the Deputy Commissioner while granting permission. The Addl. Collector vide order dated 27.7.2006 directed for restoration of land in favour of the appellants on the ground that the respondent after purchase of the land in the year 1985 did not use the same. The respondent preferred appeal before the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division against the order of restoration which was dismissed. Respondent then filed W.P.(C) No. 6266 of 2007 challenging the order of restoration passed by the Addl. Collector and the Commissioner, Hazaribagh. Learned Single Judge found that undisputedly the restoration application was filed after 22 years for restoration of land and that no ground was available to the appellants to get an order of restoration. Hence, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of restoration.

(3.) The most interesting and important facts of the case which have been brought on record by respondent No. 4 are that the appellants during pendency of the writ petition executed 8 sale deeds and transferred the entire land in dispute in favour of one Hemant Soren and the respondent was forcibly dispossessed from the land in question. The appellants by their rejoinder dated 25.1.2010 have admitted the facts that they have sold the land to one Hemant Soren.