SHIVDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners by way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing and setting aside the order dated 02.08.2005, passed by the Revisional authority in S.A.R. Revision No. 121 of 1999 as well as the order dated 20th July, 1999 passed by the appellate authority in S.A.R. Appeal No. 43 of 1990 -91 (Annexure -8 and 7 respectively), whereby the appellate authority set aside the order dated -04.10.1990 passed by the L.R.D.C., Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur (Respondent No. 4) in R.P. Case No. 10 of 1984 -85 (Annexure -6) and the revisional authority also confirmed the order passed by the appellate authority.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents.

(3.) THE learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question since 1940. According to him, the petitioners filed Title Suit No. 942 of 1964 in the Court of Munsif, Jamshedpur and the said suit was decided in the year 1964 in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter, the C.N.T. Act was enforced in the year 1977 and the private Respondents filed an application dated 07.06.1984 under Section 71 of the C.N.T. Act for restoration of the land in question and on the basis of their application, the L.R.D.C. started the proceedings and after hearing the parties concerned and after considering the evidence on record decided the matter in favour of the petitioners and rejected the application filed under Section 71 of the Act. The said order was reversed by the appellate authority. Thereafter, the revisional authority confirmed the order passed by the appellate authority. According to the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, the appellate authority passed order after a long gap and accordingly observation has been made by the appellate authority in its order that since he was busy in other administrative works, the order could not be pronounced earlier. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the material which was produced on record and the argument, which was advanced by the petitioners, could not be properly appreciated by the appellate authority. It is further submitted that the revisional authority has also, without proper consideration of the question involved in the matter and without proper appreciation of the evidence on record passed an order and confirmed the order passed by the appellate authority and therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court.