R.R. Prasad, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The aforesaid interlocutory application bearing No. 2514 of 2006 has been filed wherein prayer has been made to substitute Somri Oraon in place of deceased respondent No. 5, Sukra Oraon, who died during the pendency of hearing of the writ application as she being daughter -in -law of the deceased Sukra Oraon inherited the property of the deceased whereas the interlocutory application bearing No. 2703 of 2006 has been filed on behalf of Pyara Kachhap praying therein to substitute him in place of deceased respondent No. 5, Sukra Oraon, who died without leaving any lineal male descendents Gharjamai adopted into the house as a prospective son -in -law as the petitioner being nearest male agnate has inherited the property of the deceased as per the customs of Oraon.
(2.) BEFORE adverting to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the facts giving rise to this writ application need to be stated hereunder. As per the case of the petitioner the then Ex -landlords Mahalia Pahan and Gosala Pahan settled the land in the year 1937 to one Chhedi Khansama through Hukumnama with Chaparbandi right, who came in possession and constructed houses over the land. After the death of Chhedi Khansama, when his son Badal came in possession of the land, his name was entered into the revenue record. In course of time, the each of the petitioner purchased different plots of land in question and got their names mutated in the revenue record of the State and then constructed houses over the respective land and started living peacefully by regularly making payment of taxes including Municipal Taxes. However, in the year 1985, one Gajila Pahan filed an application under Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act claiming restoration of the land in question. On the said application, case was registered as S.A.R. No. 18 of 1985. In the year 1991, one Sukra Pahan filed an application for intervention claiming himself to be the legal heir and successor of the owner of the property Mahalia Pahan. His claim was turned down by the Special Officer while deciding the matter on merit. However, on appeal being preferred by Sukra pahan, the order passed by the Special Officer was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication. After the remand, the said S.A.R case No. 18 of 1985 and other connected matters were heard. The Special Officer, vide its order dated 20.2.1996 passed an order of restoration of the land in favour of Sukra Pahan, respondent No. 5 whereby 51 persons were directed to give possession of the land to respondent No. 5, Sukra Oraon.
(3.) AGAINST that order, aggrieved persons preferred an appeal which got dismissed and then the revision preferred against the order passed by the appellate authority was also dismissed. Thereupon this writ application, bearing W.P. (Cr) No. 225 of 2003 as well as other writ applications including W.P. (C) Nos. 226, 898 and 1132 of 2003 were filed.;