AJAY MUNDA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 27.07.2000 passed by the respondent No.4 in Land Restoration Case No. 21/1999 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) under Section 46(4-A)(a) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act [hereinafter to be referred to as 'the said Act'], the order dated 08.08.2001 passed in appeal by the respondent No.3 in Land Restoration Appeal No. RAN-13/2000 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and the order dated 24.01.2006 passed in revision by the respondent No.2 in Land Restoration Revision No. 124/2001 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition).

(2.) The factual background of the case is that Ram Sati Munda and Bathuwa Munda filed Title Suit No. 1069/1966 on 01.12.1966 against Bigal Mahto and Maya Ram Mahto for recovery of possession of the land in dispute. The said suit was disposed of vide order dated 04.05.1967 on the basis of compromise between the parties affirming the possession of Bigal Mahto and Maya Ram Mahto (defendants therein). Subsequently, Land Restoration Case No. 297/1974 was filed by Ram Sati Munda against Bigal Mahto & Ors. under Section 46(4-A)(a) of the said Act for restoration of the entire land. In the said case, Bathuwa Munda (father of the petitioner) filed an affidavit dated 12.12.1974 stating, inter alia, that Ram Sati Munda is his own brother. Moreover, the restoration application filed by him is not maintainable and Bigal Mahto and Maya Ram Mahto are continuing in possession over the said property for last 30 years. Bathuwa Munda also admitted that the compromise petition filed in the suit was genuine and no fraud was practised. In the proceeding of Land Restoration Case No. 297/1974, on the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaribagh, a report was submitted on 15.09.1974 by the Circle Inspector, Ramgarh to the effect that the opposite parties (Bigal Mahto & Ors.) were in possession of the land in question for several years and their names were also mutated in Register-II (tenant's ledger register) in Circle Office, Ramgarh. Accordingly, vide order dated 13.01.1975, Land Restoration Case No. 297/1974 instituted at the instance of Ram Sati Munda was dismissed as barred by limitation, as the said application for restoration was not filed within a period of 12 years. No appeal or revision was filed against the said order.

(3.) In the year 1980, another restoration case being Land Restoration Case No. 98/1980 was filed by Ram Sati Munda under Section 46(4-A)(a) of the said Act for restoring the land measuring an area of 7.82 acres and vide order dated 01.11.1980, the Deputy Commissioner, Sadar, Hazaribagh dismissed the said restoration application.