SUHARI DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This interlocutory application has been preferred under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 129 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :- It is the case of the writ petitioner that Land Restoration Case No. 14/1993 was initiated by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaribag on the basis of letter issued by the Circle Officer, Mandu bearing Letter No. 586 dtd. 6/6/1986 and vide order dtd. 3/10/1994 Land Restoration Case was dismissed by holding that the said authority could not figure out the date on which recorded tenants were dispossessed from the property and simultaneously also recorded that recorded tenants were dispossessed for more than 12 years. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that the order dtd. 3/10/1994 passed in Land Restoration Case No. 14/1993 was challenged before the appellate authority in R.A.N. Case No. 1/2001 wherein the appellate authority recorded that the private respondents had placed their claim on illegal documents and the petitioner was dispossessed for a period less than 12 years and accordingly appeal was allowed. The private respondents filed revision before the revisional authority being Land Restoration Revision No. 50/2004 which was disposed of vide order dtd. 24/7/2012. The revisional authority recorded that the private respondents herein were in possession of the property since 1934. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the order passed by the revisional authority dtd. 24/7/2012 in Restoration Revision No.50/2004, invoked the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No.7313 of 2012 taking the ground that the continuous Khatiyan prepared after vesting carries the name of the ancestors of the petitioner showing possession as also various documents filed by way of supplementary affidavit, have not been considered. The private respondents appeared and took the ground that the restoration proceeding was initiated on the basis of a report of the Circle Officer contained in letter dtd. 6/6/1986 wherein it was observed that the recorded tenants were dispossessed for more than 20 years. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the fact about the filing of the restoration application during the statutory period of 12 years as stipulated under Sec. 46(4)-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, 1908), has dismissed the writ petition, against which the present intra-court appeal has been preferred.

(3.) Mr. M.K.Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant- writ petitioner, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact that the writ petitioner was in possession over the land in question and within 12 years the restoration application has been filed but without its consideration the learned Single Judge upheld the order passed by the revisional authority wherein the revisional authority has come to conclusive finding about filing of restoration application after the period of 12 years as stipulated under Sec. 46(4)-A of the Act, 1908, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further submits that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge by holding the restoration application having been filed beyond the period of 12 years is based upon no substantial evidence and, as such, on this ground alone the order passed by the learned Single Judge should be held to be not sustainable.