BIPIN GOPE Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this writ application has prayed for issuance of an order for quashing the proceedings vide Misc. Case No. 1 of 2004 -05, pending before the Respondent No. 3 for execution of the order dated 07.01.1991, passed by the Respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.A.R. Appeal No. 54 of 1986 -87, whereby on dismissal of the appeal, the land in question was directed to be restored in favour of the Respondent No. 6 on his making payment of compensation of Rs. 20,000/ -to the petitioner within three months prior to the date of the order.

(2.) THE facts of the petitioners case in brief is that his father, late Bir Singh Gope had purchased the land under reference in this case, from the previous recorded tenant, namely, Birsa Purty. Besides occupying the constructed house, which was already in existence over the land, the purchaser constructed another house within the same land and has been in occupation and possession of the same and after him, his son, namely the petitioner has come in occupation of the land alongwith the house structure.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would argue that under Section 71 (a) of the C.N.T. Act, the process for restoration of the land could not be initiated after the period of limitation defeating the petitioners right, which she had acquired by way of adverse possession.