HARI PADA BANDOPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the (i) order dated 20.10.1999 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro (Respondent No. 2) in R.A. Case No. 5/97, (ii) order dated 14.12.1989, and (iii) order dated 15.3.2000, passed by Anchal Adhikari, Chandankiyari, District-Bokaro (Respondent No. 4) in Land Restoration Case No. 44/87-88. According to the petitioner, the land of Khata No. 33, measuring an area of 4.46 acres of Mouza-Simalkuri, P.S.-Chandankiyari, District-Bokaro, was recorded in the name of one Nuna Manjhi in the survey record of rights. Khedan Manjhi had predeceased his father Nuna Manjhi. Kalla Manjhiain, widow of Nuna Manjhi was unable to cultivate the said land, she, therefore, had surrendered the land to the ex-landlord by a registered deed of surrender dated 16th March, 1940. The ex-landlord came in possession of the land. Subsequently, he settled the said land in favour of Rishikesh Bandopadhyay-father of the petitioner-by virtue of registered deed of settlement. The petitioner's father came in possession of the land remained in possession till his death. After death of the petitioner's father, the petitioner alongwith other descendants inherited the land. They have been in peaceful possession of the said land. In the year 1988, the respondent No. 4 on his own initiated a proceeding registered as Land Restoration Case No. 44/87-88. The proceeding was purportedly initiated under Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. In the said proceeding, notice was not served on the petitioner, though the land was in peaceful continuous possession of the petitioner and his family since 1940. The Anchal Adhikari, Chandankiyari proceeded with the case initiated under Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act though the village does not fall within the scheduled area notified under the provision of Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1969 and passed final order holding the petitioner's possession illegal and directing for restoration of the land in favour of the applicant-private respondent. The petitioner, thereafter preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, on several grounds. Learned Deputy Commissioner without considering the grounds of appeal dismissed the petitioner's appeal by order dated 20.10.1999.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the orders in this writ petition, mainly, on the ground that the land does not fall within the scheduled area and the provisions of Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act is not applicable. The entire proceeding is non est and without jurisdiction.

(3.) It has been averred that the allegations made in the application for restoration at best attract the provision of Section 46(4-A) of the C.N.T. Act. But under that provision, the period prescribed for filing application for restoration of the land in case of dispossession is 12 years from the date of dispossession. Since, the land was in possession of the petitioner and his predecessor-in-interest since settlement of the same in 1940, the application filed for restoration in 1988 is barred by limitation.