SARMISTHA SINHA Vs. MEERA PRASAD : STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions have been filed against the common order dated 25.11.2002 passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, in Ranchi SAR Revision No. 46/1997. This order of the Commissioner has been annexed as Annexure -7 in WPC No. 6768/ 2002, Annexure -6 in WPC No. 6729/2002, by which in exercise of the revisional power, the learned Commissioner has set aside the order dated 30.10.1996 passed by the Dy. Commissioner, Ranchi in SAR Appeal No. 18R, 15/94 -95 and allowed the revision application, filed by Respondent No. 5 Bandhan Oraon.

(2.) THE relevant facts, in short, are that a proceeding under Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, being SAR Case No. 26/89 -90 was initiated on an application made by Bandhan Oraon, S/o Sanicharwa Oraon (Respondent No. 5 herein) against Smt. Pratima Bakshi (Respondent No. 6) for restoration of the land appertaining to Plot No. 1589 within Khata No. 121 area 52 decimals. It was claimed on the ground that the applicant Bandhan Oraon was illegally dispossessed from the said land though he is the descendent of the recorded tenant, and a member of Scheduled Tribes. The writ petitioners Sarmistha Sinha and Meera Prasad were added as party respondents in the aforesaid proceeding before the S.A.R. Officer since they had purchased part of the disputed land by registered deeds of sale.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the order passed by the Special Officer, S.A.R., Bandhan Oraon (Respondent No. 5) preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, which was registered as S.A.R. Appeal No. 18R, 15/94 -95. The Deputy Commissioner, by terms of the order contained in Annexure -4, dated 30.10.1996, dismissed the appeal after hearing the parties and confirmed the order passed by the Special Officer, SAR holding that Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act does not apply in the case of Chhaparbandi land and that the application filed by the applicant for restoration of the land was barred by limitation since it was filed after a lapse of 40 years.