GOPAL SAHU Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner to quash the order dated 5th Nov., 1992, passed by respondent No. 3, Additional Collector, Gumla, in S.A.R. Appeal No. 9R 15/89-90, as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ petition, whereby, the appeal filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 has been allowed and the lands measuring 70 Decimals out of R.S. Plot No. 1415, 7 Decimals out of R.S. Plot No. 1416, 40 Decimals out of R.S. Plot No. 1417 and 23 Decimals out of R.S. Plot No. 1418, pertaining to Khata No. 8, and 30 Decimals of land out of R.S. Plot No. 1422 of Khata No. 9, situated at Village-Dhoribahar, P.S.-Jaldega, District-Gumla, have been ordered to be restored in favour of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 under the provisions of Sec. 71-A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (in short 'C.N.T. Act') and further to quash the order dated 20th July, 1999, passed by respondent No. 2, the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, in Gumla Revenue Revision No. 199 of 1993, as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition, whereby, the revision preferred by the petitioner, has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts, in brief, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that initially respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had filed an application under Sec. 71-A of the C.N.T. Act, claiming restoration of the lands, in question, as detailed in paragraph No. 1 of the writ petition, before the learned Deputy Collector, in-charge Land Reforms, Gumla, which was registered as S.A.R. Case No. 187 of 1982 83. The petitioner herein filed his show cause, taking specific stand that in view of Sec. 71-A of the C.N.T. Act the case was not maintainable and misconceived and, thus, liable to be rejected. It was further contended that there was no contravention of Sec. 46 of the C.N.T. Act. Specific issue was raised that since Indar Lohar, grand-father of respondent Nos. 5 and 6, was "Lohar" by caste and the recorded tenants are also "Lohar" by caste, the same does not come within the category of Scheduled Tribe and, thus, Sec. 71-A of the C.N.T. Act has no application. The petitioner further contended that the lands, in question, were purchased through a registered deed of sale dated 19th Jan., 1953 in which the executant described himself as "Lohar" by caste. Immediately after purchase of the lands, the petitioner got the same mutated in his favour through the Circle Officer and was regularly making payment of rent in his own name.

(3.) According to the petitioner, at the instigation of some interested people, respondent No. 5 raised a false claim belatedly in the year, 1982 over the plot, in question, and prayed for restoration of the land in his favour under Sec. 71-A of the C.N.T. Act.