MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19.11.1994 passed by respondent No. 4 directing restoration of the land of the petitioner in favour of respondent Nos. 5 to 9 under Section 46 (4 -A) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (in short 'CNT Act') and also the order dated 26.9.2000 passed by respondent No. 2 in Restoration Revision No. 140/1996 whereby he has allowed the revision and quashed the order of the Appellate Authority upholding restoration of land in favour of the said respondent.

(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The land of Khata No. 192 of Village Bongabar was recorded as a raiyati land in the name of Bahira Munda and after his death the land was jointly inherited by his two sons, Raghubir Munda and Jhabu Munda. Jhabu Munda died issueless and after his death Raghubir Munda became the sole raiyat of the land. Raghubir Munda died leaving behind four sons who, by hukumnama dated 1.3.1946, alleged to have settled the land with one Chhangilal Agarwal and put him is possession of the said land. In 1960 Chhangilal Agarwal filed Title Suit No. 42 of 1960 for declaration that he has acquired valid and perfect title and possession over the aforesaid land. The suit was decreed on 2.5.1960 in terms of compromise petition filed by Chandgi Lal Agarwal and all the sons of Raghubir Munda. Later on Changilal Agarwal sold the aforesaid land to one Kamta Prasad Singh who, in turn, sold the said land to the father of the petitioner, Kailash Singh by virtue of a registered deed of sale dated 6.2.1969. The purchaser, Kailash Singh alleged to have made several constructions over the land and also mortgaged the land in favour of Bank of Baroda and executed a mortgage deed dated 9.12.1969. In 1983 Malwa Munda and others alleged to have filed an application for restoration of land being Restoration Case No. 4/83 against the father of the petitioner, Kailash Singh under Section 46 (4 -A) of the CNT Act and the same was dismissed on 30.12.1983 by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaribagh on the ground, inter alia, that the said application for restoration was barred by limitation.

(3.) MR . S. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned order of the Commissioner as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submitted that the revisional authority while passing the impugned order has totally ignored the fact that the subsequent application for restoration was barred by the principles of res judicata. Learned counsel put reliance in this regard on the decisions of the Patna High Court in the case of Md. Salimuddin v. Commissioner, South Chotanapur Division, Ranchi, reported in 1993 PLJR 14, in the case of Dhananjay Mandal Suri v. State of Bihar, reported in 1990 PLJR 633 and in the case of Hari Shankar Prasad Kesri v. State of Bihar, (1995) 1 BLJR 604. Learned counsel further contended that even assuming that the second application was not barred by the principles of res judicata, it was hopelessly barred by limitation inasmuch as the restoration application was filed after 30 years from the date of dispossession. In this connection learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Suraj Deo Singh v. Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, reported in 1993 (1) PLJR 473.