ANGILINA TIRKEY Vs. COMMISSIONER, SOUTH CHHOTANAGPUR DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ / order / direction for quashing the ex -parte original order dated 28.11.1988 (Annexure -1) passed by Respondent No. 3 whereby and whereunder the Respondents, directed for restoration of the lands under proceeding in the purported exercise of power under Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act without any application of mind and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner of filing her show -cause and contesting the proceeding merely on the ground of non -appearance by relying upon the collusive report of the Peon as also for quashing the appellate order dated 26.12.1991 (Annexure -4) and the revisional order dated 18.5.1999 (Annexure -5) confirming the said ex -parte order, although the petitioner has acquired the properties in question after grating of due permission by the Deputy Commissioner, and therefore, there was no violation of the provision of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and further although the petitioner's father was recorded as Sikmidar in the revisional survey khatiyan prepared almost 70 years ago and therefore, the claim of restoration was hopelessly barred by limitation.

(2.) THE facts in brief are set out as under:

(3.) THE second contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that possession of the father of the petitioner over the land in question continued since 1935 and thus after a lapse of a period of five years from which the father of the petitioner had been put in possession as a non -raiyat, making possession of the father of the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner's possession over the land in question hostile and thus no order of restoration under Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act could have been passed after lapse of such a long period of time.