RAM RATAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, rule, order or direction to quash the order dated 28.9.99 passed by respondent No. 2 in Land Restoration Revision No. 32/94 allowing the Revision and setting aside the order dated 18.6.88 passed by respondent No. 3 in Land Restoration Appeal No. 28/1986 and confirming the order dated 4.3.86 passed by respondent No. 5 in Land Restoration case No. 66/85 whereby the respondent No. 6 in purported exercise of its power under Section 46(4)(a) C.N.T. Act illegally passed order for restoration of Land belongs to the petitioner's wife Smt. Chintamani Devi in favour of respondent No. 5.

(2.) THE facts, in brief are set out as under: The dispute involves an area measuring 0.24 acres of which 0.12 acres of plot No. 423 and 0.12 acre of plot No. 429 under Khata No. 141 of village Cantonment, Thana No. 157, P.S. and Sistt. Hazaribag The Khata No. 141 is recorded in the name of Mosemat Lakshmania who died leaving behind one son Bandhan Uraon, who also died leaving behind his only son Fagu Uraon. Fagu also died leaving behind three sons Mangar Uraon, Santu Uraon and Dadhwa Uraon. Phulo Devi is widow of Mangar Uraon. It is submitted that one Chintamani Devi w/o opposite party prior to her marriage occupied the land in 1948 and after marriage of O.P. fenced the area with pucca boundary and excavated a well and constructed a house. In the year 1964 Fagu Uraon (father of the petitioner) filed T.S. No. 997/1974 before Munsif for declaration of title against Chintamani Devi. But he allegedly compromised in 1965 accepting the title and possession of Chintamani Devi and the Decree was ordered in favour of Chintamani Devi on 8.6.1965. Revenue authorities allowed mutation in favour of Chintamani Devi in 1966 -67 and rent was fixed from Municipality also. Again Fagu filed an application under Section 46(4a) of the C.N.T. Act for restoration of land which was recorded as L.R. Case No. 407/76 before L.R.D.C. which was allowed vide order dated 8.8.1977. Against this order, an appeal was filed before Additional Collector as C.N.T. Appeal No. 82/77. In the meantime, Fagu died and his three sons Mangra, Dhadwa and Santu were substituted. These substituted petitioners allegedly filed a compromise petition on 12.4.1982 accepting the possession of Chintamani Devi (w/o O.P.) On the basis of affidavit and petition, the Additional Collector vide order dated 28.7.1982 allowed the appeal in favour of Chintamani Devi (wife of present O.P.) After lapse of three years, instead of filing Revision before Divisional Commissioner, Mangra Uraon & his brothers filed fresh case for the restoration of disputed land before Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaribag, being L.R. Case No. 66/85 against the husband of Chintamani Devi (present O.P.) and learned L.R.D.C. did not advise the petitioners to go for revision and admitted the case afresh and vide order dated 4.3.1986 passed order for the restoration. Against this order, the O.P. filed an appeal No. RAN -29/86 before Additional Collector, Hazaribagh who quashed the order of the L.R.D.C. on the grounds of limitation bar and resjudicata. The learned Additional Collector also relied on the previous judgment of his predecessor passed on 28.7.82 in 82/77 in which it is mentioned that petitioners had appeared before the Court and accepted the compromise held between two parties in T.S. No. 997/1964 in which they accepted the possession from 1948. The learned Additional Collector concluded that this acceptance confirms the dispossession of the petitioners (here) for more than 30 years and under these circumstances he could not find any provision for restoration under Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act.

(3.) I have considered the pleadings and the arguments of the rival parties. It is well settled that the word transfer used in Section 46(4)(a) and Section 71(a) of the C.N.T. Act has to be given a wider interpretation and any dispossession even by force/fraud will come under the definition of illegal transfer as has taken place in this case. The private respondents have not even produced any document which give them the right and title over the land as to how it was transferred in their favour from the tribal tenant. The decree in the title suit No. 997/64 is based on a compromise which appears to be fraudulent/collusive.