DULA SANTHAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The petitioner being a member of the Scheduled Tribe filed an application under Sec. 71 /A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as C.N.T. Act) against the Respondent No. 5 herein (Sri Shiv Charan Das) claiming restoration of 36 Decimals of land more fully described in the petition situated in village Sadpura in the District of Singhbhum (East). By Annexure-1 dated 13-5-1993, the petition filed by the petitioner was allowed and the land in question was directed to be restored in his favour.

(2.) The Respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner against the said order dated 13-5-1993 (Annexure - 1) passed by the D.C.L.R. Ghatsila which was registered as S.A.R. Appeal No. 12/93-94. The Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum (East), by Order dated 22-11-1994 (Annexure - 3) dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the D.C.L.R.. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 5 preferred a revision under Sec. 217 of the C.N.T. Act before the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi. The learned Commissioner, by impugned order dated 29-6-1999 (Annexure - 6) allowed the Revision Application and set aside the orders of the D.C.L.R. as well as of the Deputy Commissioner holding that it is the settled principles of law that 30 years period of Termination has to be calculated from the date of disposal to the date of filing of restoration and in the present case, the restoration application was filed after a period of 50 years and therefore, the same was barred by Limitation. This order of the learned Commissioner has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ application.

(3.) Challenging the impugned order of the Revisional Court, the petitioner has raised various points including the point of Limitation and has submitted that the findings given by the Revisional Court that the petition for restoration filed by the petitioner was barred by Limitation was absolutely wrong. The petitioner has submitted that it was a case of surrender and settlement and the land in question was surrendered, by the ancestor of the petitioner to the then landlord on 16-10-1941 for consideration of payment of amount of Rs.25.00 and therefore, the said surrender was a transfer and such was in violation of Sec. 46 of the C.N.T. Act and therefore, the land in question was liable to be restored in favour of the petitioner.