M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. A.N. Deo, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and learned JC to GP 2 and with their consent this writ application is disposed of at this stage.
(2.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19.7.1999 passed by Commissioner. North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh in Revision No. 168/94 and the order dated 6.10.1993 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector in Land Registration Case No. 19/87. Copies of these orders have been annexed as Annexures 9 and 7 respectively to the writ application. The petitioners case is that the land pertaining to Khata No. 72, Plot No. 1134 total area 30 decimals was recorded in the name of Bigan Bedia Kartik Bedia, sons of Nanhak Bedia having one share each and Mst. Guhma Bedia, wife of Guja Bedia having one share. It is stated that there had been a family partition of the lands of Khata No. 72, whereby portion of plot No. 1134 was allotted to Kartika Bedia and Bigan Bedia and another 15 decimals land of plot No. 1134 was allotted to Guhma Bedia. Mst. Guhma Bedia intended to transfer the aforementioned 15 decimals land in favour of her daughter Chandra Bedia and Chandra Devi, who was married with one Hujata Bedia and for that purpose, a permission case was filed being Misc. Case No. 301/78 -79 before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Ramgarh. During the pendency of the said application one of the recorded tenant Kartik Bedia died issueless. It is stated that Bigan Bedia became the raiyat of half portion of plot No. 1134 given in partition to Kartik Bedia. Petitioners further case is that in the said permission case permission was accorded by the Deputy Collector -cum -Special Officer in terms of the order dated 16.4.1979 for transfer of land by way of gift in favour of Chandra Devi. However, the sale deed was not presented and the registration could not be effected. It is alleged that after the death of Guhma Bedia, her daughter Chandra Devi alongwith her husband came in possession of the land and has been paying rent to the State of Bihar. The petitioners further case is that his mother Chandra Devi sold and transferred a portion of the land of plot No. 1134 to one Somri Devi. It is stated that in 1992 petitioner came to know that the respondent No. 2, on an application made by respondent No. 5, Chhedi Bedia against one Khirdhar Gope, had passed an order for reiteration of 15 decimals of land of plot No. 1134 in Restoration Case No. 19/87. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application before the Deputy Collector asserting that he was in actual possession of plot No. 1134 and Sri Chhedi Bedia has no concern with the land and the order of restoration obtained by Chhedi Bedia was illegal and without jurisdiction. The Deputy Collector, however, directed the Circle Officer to effect delivery of possession according to the order of restoration passed under Section 46(4)(a) of the CNT Act. The petitioner then moved this Court by filing CWJC No. 2538/93(R) which was disposed of by order dated 27.8.1993. The petitioner then again moved before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector making a fresh application for being impleaded as a party and for hearing the case on merit. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, by order dated 6.10.1992 ordered for restoration of land in favour of Chhedi Bedia. The petitioner aggrieved by the said order, moved before the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh in Restoration Appeal No. 17/93. The said appeal was finally heard and disposed of on 1.8.1994 holding that the Revenue Court was not competent to decide the question of title in a summary proceeding under Section 46(4)(a) of the Act. The respondent No. 4, aggrieved by the said order, moved the Commissioner by filing restoration revision No. 168/94. The Commissioner, however, after hearing the parties, allowed the revision application by order dated 19.7.1999 and set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector and restored the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector in Restoration Case No. 19/87.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 4 stating, inter alia, that the recorded raiyat Guhma Bedia had obtained permission to transfer the land to her daughter Smt. Chandra Devi but transfer could not be effected. There was a land restoration case between Chhedi Bedia and Khirodhar Gope in which order was passed by the respondent No. 2 for restoration of land and the same has became final.;