LAKHO DEVI Vs. SK.RAHIMUDDIN ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11th December, 1997, passed in CWJC No. 325 of 1988 (R), whereby and whereunder, the order dated 29th March, 1976, passed in SAR No. 73 of 1975 by the Special Officer, Lohardaga, and the order dated 30th May, 1986, passed in SAR Appeal No. 15R15 of 1976 -77, by the learned Additional Collector, Lohardaga, as also the order dated 9th December, 1986, passed in Lohardaga Revenue Revision No. 376 of 1986, by the learned Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, by which the lands were ordered to be restored in favour of the appellants, have been set aside.

(2.) THE appellants have pleaded that husband of appellant and father of appellants No. 2 to 4 late Somra Singh Kherwar had filed application for restoration of land, appertaining to R.S. Plot No. 137, R.S. Khata No. 40, having an area of 1.27 acres, of village Hesa Pirhi, PS Lohardaga, District Ranchi (now Lohardaga) under the provisions of the Bihar Scheduled Area Regulation Act, 1969. The Halka Karmachi and the Circle Inspector, Kisku, in course of enquiry submitted their reports to the effect that the land in question has been recorded in the name of Rudni Kherwarin, wife of Murli Singh. The applicant is the nephew of the recorded raiyat, who is also landless, which is clear from the order of the Settlement Officer (SARJ in SAR Case No. 73 of 1975.

(3.) IT is further submitted that there is violation of Section 73(2) of the CNT Act, which is mandatory and which has been formulated in order to secure the interest of the tribals from being dispossessed from the land by Ex. Landlord on the ground of abandonment. In the present case, it has been argued that there was never any abandonment of the land in question. Section 73(1) of the CNT Act clearly states that if a raiyat voluntarily abandons the land, then alone the Ex. landlord can enter into the land. In the present case, the raiyat has never abandoned the land. Even after the death of the recorded tenant, the Ex. landlord ought to have taken the recourse as laid down under Section 73(2) of he CNT Act. Thus, the provision strictly prohibits the Ex. landlord from taking over the possession of the land unless the matter is decided in his favour.