RAMESHWAR DUBEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 15th February, 1999 passed in SAR Revision No. 5 of 1998 by learned Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, whereby revision filed against the order doled 26th December, 1997 passed in SAR (Appeal) No. 11 of 1997 -98 has been allowed. The case originated on an application filed by Respondent No. 5 under Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act (for short 'CNT Act') before the Sub Divisional Officer, Gumla, which was registered as SAR Case No. 27 of 1995 -96. In the said application, the Respondent No. 5 had claimed restoration of 0.35 acres of land out of total area of 0.71 acres of village Gamharia, P.S. Ghaghra, District Gumla by evicting the petitioner. The claim of the Respondent No. 5 was that the said land was recorded as Bakast Malik in the revisional survey record of right and he had got settlement from Sohan Kuer, wife of Keshwar Ram Mishra, one of the descendants of the ex. landlord, and the said land had been fraudulently acquired by the petitioner. The petitioner had contested the application, claiming his right, title and possession over the land, in question. Though Respondent No. 5 had not filed any document or adduced any evidence, the application of the Respondent No. 5 was allowed, holding that there was violation of Section 46 of the CNT Act and the land is required to be restored under the provision of Section 71A of the CNT Act.

(2.) AGAINST the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal in the court of Additional Collector, Gumla, being SAR (Appeal) No. 11 of 1997 -98. Learned Lower Appellate Court heard both the parties and considered the facts and materials on record and by order dated 26th December, 1997, the Appellate Court has set aside the said order. It is pertinent to mention here that even before the learned Lower Appellate Court no document in support of the claim was produced by the Respondent No. 5. However, learned Lower Appellate Court had held that there was violation of the provision of Section 46 of the CNT Act, but since the substantial structure was constructed by the petitioner in the year 1965 -66, value of which was more than Rs. 70,000/ -, he determined the compensation under the provision of Section 71A of the CNT Act and directed to pay the amount of compensation in lieu of restoration. It has been submitted that the petitioner, in order to avoid further litigation, deposited the amount of compensation.

(3.) THE order of the learned Commissioner has been challenged in this writ petition on the ground, inter alia, that the same is wholly perverse, arbitrary and illegal. The order does not contain any reference of document or evidence in support of claim of Respondent No. 5, but the learned Commissioner has held that the land was settled in favour of Respondent No. 5 and his name was also mutated.