CHANDRA NATH SAHU Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and State.

(2.) In the proceeding initiated by respondent no. 4 for restoration of land under Sec. 71A of Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act, S.A.R Case no. 23 to 27 of 1998 were decided by a common order dated 4th Feb., 2000 against each of these petitioners ex parte finding nonappearance on their behalf despite notice. These petitioners vainly prosecuted S.A.R Appeal no. 134 of 2000, which, however, stood dismissed on account of long absence on the part of the appellants, by the order dated 14th Oct., 2004, impugned as part of Annexure-3. Piece of land is comprised in Plot no. 306, Khata no. 146 in respect whereof illegal dispossession has been alleged by respondent no. 4.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no service of notice upon the petitioners leading to S.A.R Cases being decided ex parte. He, however, is not in a position to explain nonappearance for number of dates by the appellants in S.A.R Appeals. Apart from that, he has placed the order passed in S.A.R Case no. 363/2005-06 initiated by the same respondent no. 4 against twelve persons including petitioner no. 3 for restoration of land in the same plot no. 306 under Khata no. 146 comprising 0.92 acres. It is submitted that S.A.R Officer, Ranchi by order dated 1st Oct., 2009 found the application not maintainable on the grounds of delay in filing the same after 57 years. However, since petitioner no. 3 had approached this Court in the present writ petition, no order was passed in the case of present petitioner no. 3, but the application for restoration as against eleven persons were rejected. It is submitted that respondent no. 4 has been filing indiscriminate cases one after the other in respect of same plot and khata number against several such persons. The same S.A.R Officer has disbelieved the claim of respondent no. 4 in S.A.R Case no. 363/2005-06 on the same plot no. 306, Khata no. 146, whereas due to absence of proper notice, petitioners could not plead their cases in S.A.R Case nos. 2327 of 1998 which stood decided ex parte against them unfortunately. Therefore, interference is required in the impugned order.