DURGA CHARAN SARDAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 11.8.98 passed in Singhbhum Revenue Revision No. 347 of 87 by the Respondent No. 2, the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi contained in Annexure -6 and the order dated 17.8.87 passed in S.A.R. Appeal No. 75 of 85 -86 by the respondent No. 3 the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum West contained in Annexure -5 and the order dated 26.8.85 passed in S.A.R. Case No. 85 of 79 -80 by the respondent No. 4 the S.D.O. Saraikella, Singhbhum West contained in Annexure -4 and further directing the respondents not to disturb the possession of the petitioner over the lands in question.

(2.) THE facts in brief are stated as under: The petitioner filed a petition S.A.R. Case No. 85 of 79 -80 before Sub Divisional Officer, Saraikella, Singhbhum West for restoration of lands bearing plot No. 339 (of area 0.22 acres) plot No. 340 (Area of 1.53) plot No. 343 of area 0.73 acres and plot No. 354 (of area 0.83 acres) of total area 3.31 acres under Khata No. 37 of village Sanjar within Rajnagar Police Station, Dist. Singhbhum West against Chinibas Mahto father of the opposite party on the ground that the said Chinibas Mahato is in possession of the aforesaid lands on the basis of an illegal compromise decree obtained by practicing fraud on the petitioner's father Tanu Sardar and on his uncle Panjam Sardar and also by suppressing the facts and law in the court of the Munsif at Saraikella. The aforesaid case was registered as S.A.R. case No. 85/79 -80 before the Sub -Divisional Officer, at Saraikella. During the pendency Chinibas Mahato died and he was substituted by his two sons namely Yadav Mahato and Suren Chandra Mahato and they were made parties and they filed their show -cause stating therein that the O.P. purchased the land from the grandfather of the applicant petitioner more than 30 years ago on payment of valuable consideration and since then they are in cultivating possession. They have also contended that they had valid right, title by adverse possession in the land long before S.A.R. Act came into force in the locality.

(3.) THE main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there was no obligation of limitation in a proceeding under Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. It has further been contended that the compromise decree is a fraudulent transfer since it was based on an oral transfer. It has further been contended that Deputy Commissioner was a necessary party in any suit and since he was not impleaded, the compromise decree has no value in the eyes of law in view of Section 46(3) of the C.N.T. Act.