SOHRAI ORAON Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 27.1.1998 passed in CWJC No. 2/96(R) whereby the learned Single Judge refused to interfere with the orders passed by the Authority under section 71 A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act.

(2.) PETITIONERS /appellants' case is that the land appertaining to R.S. Khata No. 71 plot no. 78 measuring an area of 15 decimals situated at village Madhukam, P.S. Sukhdeonagar was recorded as Kaimi in the revisional survey records of right in the name of the ancestors of the petitioners. Petitioners filed application under section 71 A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act for restoration of land which was registered as S.A.R. Case no. 250 of 1979 -80. The Special Officer, Ranchi in terms of order dated 6.12.1983 allowed the restoration application and in the alternative directed for payment of compensation holding that the lands were raiyati lands of the member of the scheduled tribe and was transferred in contravention of the provisions of the said Act. Respondent nos. 6 to 8 preferred appeal against the said order. The appellate authority by its judgment dated 13.1.1986 inter alia held that only 61/2 decimals of lands were Chaparbandi lands and consequently allowed the appeal in part in respect of only 61/2 decimals of lands of plot no. 78. Thereafter, petitioner filed revision application before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division being S.A.R. Revision No. 226 of 1986. The Revisional Authority in terms of order dated 16.3.1994 dismissed the revision application and held that the entire land measuring an area of 13 decimals cannot be restored under section 71A of the said Act. Petitioner then filed the aforementioned writ petition challenging the order of the revisional authority. Learned Single Judge held that when the land was Chaparbandi one, petition under section 71 A of the Act was not maintainable and further that when both appellate authority and the revisional authority have held that the land is Chaparbandi, there is no scope for this Court to re -appreciate the material on record to decide whether the lands had been Chaparbandi or not.

(3.) MR . Debi Prasad, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondents firstly submitted that the application for restoration filed in 1979 itself was barred by principles of res judicata inasmuch as similar application was filed in 1976 which was rejected and against that order no appeal or revision was filed by the appellant. Learned counsel then submitted that the land in question is a Chaparbandi land which was sold as far back as in 1953 and even in the records maintained by the State of Bihar 'the land was recorded as Chaparbandi. It is contended that the predecessor in interest of the appellant have sold the land for valuable consideration by virtue of registered sale deed dated 11.5.1953 in favour of Smt. Ruma Devi, widow of Babu Hira Lal and Smt. Ruma Devi in her turn gifted the land together with the outstanding dues thereon in favour of Smt. Puspa Devi by virtue of registered sale deed in 1965. Learned counsel submitted that in all the revenue records the land in question was shown as Chaparbandi land and, therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly affirmed the order passed by the revenue authorities.