KATRINA TOPPO Vs. MATILDA URAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Sohan Oraon was the owner of 19 decimals of land in plot No. 1241 under khata No. 408 of Dumar Toli village. He had three sons, Donde Oraon, Ahlad Oraon and Daniel Oraon. Daniel and Ahlad sold 10 decimals of land out of the 19 decimals to Silbanus Lakra under exihibit 4 dated 18 -6 -1967. Daniel Oraon, the third son, in his turn, sold 2.5 decimals of land to the said Silbanus Lakra on 20 -6 -1967 under exhibit 4 -A. Thus Silbanus Lakra acquired rights over 12.5 decimals of land. On 28 -10 -1970, Silbanus Lakra sold the said 12.5 decimals of land to the plaintiff in the present suit. The daughter -in -law and grand son of Daniel, the son of Sohan Oraon, brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, the fact that the alienations by Donde Oraon, Ahlad Oraon and Daniel Oraon to Silbanus Lakra were without the prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner as contemplated by Section 46 of the Act and consequently the said transfers were to be treated as void, as the transferee was not a member of the scheduled tribe and that the land was liable to be restored to them as a successors in interest of the three sons of Sohan Oraon. A proceeding was consequently initiated by the Deputy Commissioner. The proceeding was opposed by the transferee by contending that the land was not raiyati land, that Sohan Oraon had himself constructed a house in a portion of the land and was residing therein with his family, that the land had lost its character of raiyati land, that in any event it was Chhaparbandi land and hence there was no question of the transfers in favour of Silbanus Lakra the transferor of the plaintiff, being null and void. The Sub -divisional Officer, who was exercising the power of the Special Officer under the Act after a due enquiry, held that the land was raiyati land, that it had not been converted into non -raiyati land by user and that the transactions effected by the sons of Sohan Oraon were hit by Section 46 of the Act and consequently, the heirs of the transferor were entitled to restoration of possession. The plaintiff being aggrieved by that order, challenging the same in an appeal under Section 215 of the Act. The Appellate Authority, set aside the order of the original authority and remanded the proceeding to the original authority for a fresh disposal in the light of the observations contained in that order. The original authority, thereafter, by order dated 23 -8 -1988 held that the applicants before him, namely, the daughter -in -law and grand son of Daniel were entitled to restoration of possession of the land.

(2.) EVEN prior to the final order being passed by the original authority on 23 -8 -1988, the plaintiff had approached the Civil Court with the present suit for a declaration of his title and possession and for a further declaration that the order dated 23 -6 -1987 passed by the original authority was void for want of jurisdiction. Subsequently, the plaint was got amended by including therein a challenge to the appellate order as well as the subsequent order passed by the original authority, for declaration of title and possession of the plaintiff, and for a further declaration that the orders passed by the authorities under the Act were void for want of jurisdiction. The plaintiff pleaded that the land was not raiyati land but was Chhaparbandi land, that the Special Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain a proceeding or for passing an order under Section 71 -A of the Act; that when the sale -deeds were executed by Daniel Oraon and Ahlad Oraon, the land was Chhaparbandi land; that the defendants who are claiming through the son of Sohan Oraon, being the heirs were bound by the recitals in deed executed by their predecessor in interest, that the order of the authority under the Act was without jurisdiction since jurisdiction of that authority was confined to dealing with raiyati lands transferred by a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe and in that situation, the order for restoration was bad in law for want of jurisdiction and that the title and the possession of the plaintiff should be upheld. This was sought to be met by the defendants in the suit claiming to be the daughter in law and grand son of Daniel by pleading that the orders of the authorities were passed well within their jurisdiction; that the suit was hit by Section 258 of the Act; that the land was always raiyati land and it had never lost its character as raiyati land and that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief.

(3.) AT this stage, we may also notice one other aspect. While the appeal was pending, the plaintiff, the appellant, made an application for an injunction restraining the authorities concerned from actually restoring possession of the property to defendants 1 and 9. This Court on that application passed an order to the following effect: - -