SMT. MIRJU KUI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by order dated 08.09.2003 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 32/200102 and order dated 08.11.2004 in S.A.R. Revision No. 93/2003-04, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, in the Records of Rights published in the year 1964, land comprised in Khata No. 288 in village/mauza Jagannathpur was recorded jointly in the name of late Jagmohan Sinku and late Ghanshyam Sinku however, it has also been mentioned that an area of 4.29 acres is in illegal possession of Rajkiya Russel High School since 1953. After the death of the recorded tenant, the petitioners came in possession of land in question, and when they tried to cultivate the land comprised in Plot No. 2198, Khata No. 288, the respondent no. 6 did not permit them to cultivate the land. The respondent no. 6 setup a claim that the land was purchased by the School sometime in the year, 1947. The petitioners were ousted from their land in the year, 2000 and therefore, an application under Sec. 71A of the C.N.T. Act for restoration of possession was filed which was registered as S.A.R. Case No. 06/2000-01. The respondent no. 6 appeared and filed reply stating that an area of 4.29 acres in Plot No. 2198 which was sold by the recorded tenant namely, Ganga Ram Ho for which permission was granted by the Kolhan superintendent on 28.03.1947 and the land was duly mutated in the name of Government Russel High School, Jagannathpur. The S.A.R. Case No. 06/2000-01 was allowed vide order dated 09.11.2001 holding that the permission can be granted only by the Deputy Commissioner under Sec. 46 of the C.N.T. Act. The Circle Officer was directed to restore the possession of the land in question to the petitioners. However, the appeal preferred by the respondent no.6 being S.A.R. Appeal No. 32/2001-02 was allowed on the ground that the application under Sec. 71A of the C.N.T. Act was time barred. The revision petition being S.A.R. Revision No. 93/ 200304 preferred by the petitioners was also dismissed vide order dated 08.11.2004 and therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.