KAROLINA EKKA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS named, herein, have called in question the validity and propriety of the order dated -25 th of January, 1999 passed in S.A.R. Revision No. 136 of 1987 by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in exercise of his Revisional power under Section 217 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, hereinafter referred to as the "Act" whereby order of the appellate authority dated -19 th of January, 1987 has been set aside and possession restored to respondents.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that Martin Ekka and Bandan Ekka, the two petitioners approached the Special Officer having power to initiate proceedings under Section 71 -A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 with an application for restoration of the possession of land bearing Khata No. 51 Plot Nos. 634 and 635, measuring an area of 87 decimals and 1.00 acre respectively of village Tikratoli, P.S. Ratu, District Ranchi on the ground that the transfer of the land took place in contravention of the provisions of Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. The aforesaid case was registered as S.A.R. Case No. 61 of 1978 -79. The Special Officer after putting the other side to notice and hearing the parties passed an order dated -15 th of May, 1980 dismissing the application. An appeal came to be preferred before the Additional Collector, Ranchi registered as S.A.R. Appeal No. 217 R 15 of 1980 -81. The Collector allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Special officer and directed restoration of the possession of the land in favour of the original applicants vide his order dated -19 th of January, 1987.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties at length. 1998 (1) BLJR 149 has no application to the facts of the case and hence the finding is liable to be set aside. He has also contended that there is no question of adverse possession, the possession being permissive, Reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court reported in the case of Md. Salimuddin @ Dhaiba v. Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi reported in 1993 (1) P.L.J.R. 14, wherein, this Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 71 -A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act read with Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, held that the limitation for the purposes of this Section for filing an application is 30 years. To the same effect is another Full Bench judgment of this Court, reported in 1983 B.L.J.R. 609.