LAWS(JHAR)-2007-4-161

ABHAY SINGH SURANA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

Decided On April 25, 2007
ABHAY SINGH SURANA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has challenged the order dated 6.3.1984 passed by respondent No. 5 in Case No. 344 of 1979 -80 directing him to pay compensation of Rs. 4,92,000.00 in favour of respondents No. 6 and 7 or to provide similar land in the vicinity of the land in question or for restoring the land in question; and also the order dated 6.1.1999 passed by respondent No. 4 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 11 of 1984 -85 confirming the said order; and also the order dated 10.6.2002 passed by respondent No. 2 in S.A.R. Revision No. 62 of 1999 confirming the said order.

(2.) RESPONDENTS No. 6 and 7 filed an application under Sec. 71 -A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (for short "the Act") before respondent No. 5 for restoration of the land in question which was registered as Case No. 344 of 1979 -80. Respondent No. 5 by order dated 6.3.1984 directed the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs. 4,92,000.00 through Court or provide similar land in the vicinity or to restore the land. Not being satisfied with this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No. 4 which was dismissed. Petitioner thereafter filed writ petition on being C.W.J.C No. 3324 of 1996(R) which was disposed of by order dated 26.3.1997 by remitting the matter to the appellate authority to consider the documents on record and pass order. On remand, the appellate authority consider the materials on record and passed order on 6.1.1999 directing the petitioner to restore the land appertaining to Plot Nos. 966 and 967 on the ground that these plots do not find mention in the registered deed of surrender and Chhaparbandi settlement dated 6.8.1945 and 29.9.1945 respectively and, therefore, only because they were mentioned in the deed of purchase of the petitioner dated 9.5.1960, he cannot claim right.

(3.) MR . Jerath, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that after purchase of the land on 9.5.1960, petitioner has been paying rent to the Municipality and the State with regard to the said Plot Nos. 966 and 967 also.