LATTU MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Intra Court Appeal is directed against the judgment passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2276 of 2017, whereby the prayer of the petitioners-appellants has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants had preferred the writ application for the following reliefs:

(3.) To decide the issue involved in this appeal, some facts are necessary to be referred: The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings of the appellants made in the writ petition is that the landed property in pertaining to Plot No.773, measuring an area of 2.22 acres under Khata No. 19, Village-Kaitha, Police Station and Thana- Ramgarh was recorded in the names of Jaylal Munda & Ghujja Munda and both are sons of Bhukhlal Munda during the last survey & settlement operation. The said Ghujija Munda approached Hitlal Mahto for some money and for that in order to create security, a piece of land comprising an area of 1.00 acres towards East of Plot No.773 under Khata No.19 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Suit Land') as has been indicted in the Title Suit No.926 of 1964 has been given in possession of the appellants, in consequence thereupon, a title suit was filed being Title Suit No. 926 of 1964 by the recorded tenant on 30/11/1964 for seeking the relief of declaration of right over the suit land, the defendants/the appellants herein be evicted from the suit land. The said title suit has culminated into a compromise decree vide decree signed on 27/1/1965 Thereafter, the said Hitlal Mahto applied for mutation before the revenue authority which was registered as Mutation Case No.321 of 1965-66 which was allowed and accordingly the name of the appellants has been entered in the rent register i.e., Register-II of Ramgarh Anchal, District Hazaribagh (now, District-Ramgarh) and since then the appellants are making payment of rent in token thereof and the rent receipts are being issued. After lapse of substantial period, an application was filed by the respondent No.6 on 23/8/2012 under the provision of Sec. 46 (4-A) of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 which was registered as Land Restoration Case No.14 of 2012-13. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms had issued notice upon the appellants, who on its service, appeared and filed reply rebutting the claim of the respondent No.6 inter alia on the ground that the restoration application has been filed beyond the period of limitation and the possession has been confirmed by way of decree passed in the Suit No.926 of 1964. However, the original authority has passed order of restoration, against which, the appellants have filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner which has also been dismissed and thereafter, the appellants have filed revision before the Commissioner North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh which was also dismissed; against which, the writ petition was preferred by the appellants and the same has also been dismissed by the learned Writ Court.