BHAGWAN MISHRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 22.11.2018 passed in C.N.T. Appeal No. 48 of 2018 by Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag is under challenge, by which appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed being barred by limitation.

(2.) It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the ancestors of the petitioner was absolute title holder of the land situated under plot nos. 648, 649, 671 and 682 under khata no. 282, out of which, land situated under plot no. 648 has been donated in favour of Kabristan and rest of the land situated under plot nos. 649, 671 and 682 remained with the absolute title of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that part of land situated under plot no. 649 has been sold and the remaining part of land is still in possession of the petitioner.

(3.) But, in the recent survey settlement, plot nos. have been changed and while creating the record of rights plot no. 1216 has been recorded as Kabristan amalgamating the other plot nos. 649, 671 and 682, against which, the petitioner filed revision before the Settlement Officer, which has been numbered as Revision Case No. 1145 of 2011 for making revision in the entry made in the draft publication of record of rights, in which, a report has been directed to be submitted by the Circle Officer, Patratu, but it appears from the face of record no such report has been furnished by the Circle Officer, Patratu about the nature of the land as to whether land pertaining to plot nos. 649, 671 and 682 is also the land in the nature of Kabristan apart from the land under plot no. 648, which was donated by the petitioner in favour of the Kabristan, but in absence of said report application for making necessary correction in the draft publication of record of right has been rejected, against which, appeal has been filed before the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag, being C.N.T. Appeal No. 48 of 2018 but the same has been rejected on the ground that the same has been filed after lapse of ten months from passing of order dated 23.09.2017 in Revision Case No. 1145 of 2011.