M.Y.EQBAL,J. - (1.) THIS appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 19.1.1998 passed in CVVJC No. 2143/1990 (R) whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ application and affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Revenue Revision No. 117/86.
(2.) THE facts of the case He in a narrow compass. The writ petitioner who is appellant here filed an application under Section 242 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (in short, 'CNT Act') claiming restoration of land of plot No. 262, 253 and 289 of khata No. 1 of village Chayadih measuring an area of 5.40 acres. The restoration application was filed against Nuru Mahtp and Gora Mahto who were respondent Nos. 4 and 5 alleging, inter alia, that he had Mundari Khutkatti rights over the land in question and in pursuant to the judgment passed in F.A. No. 257/1945 possession of the same had been delivered in his favour but subsequently the said respondents created false and fabricated documents and fraudulently dispossessed him from the land. The said restoration application was registered as case No. 13 of 1983 -84. respondent No. 4 Nuru Mahto contested the application by filing show cause stating, inter alia, that Kalipado Mahto and Durga Charan Mahto, who are respondent Nos. 7 and 8 here were actually in possession of the land under the proceeding. It was stated that the petitioner was Mundari Khutkattidar of village Mardhan and not of village Chayadih; and that the land is not Mundari Khutkatti tenancy and, therefore, the land cannot be restored. It was further contended by the respondents that after delivery of possession in pursuance of decree passed in F.A. No. 257/1945, the petitioner himself had settled the land with Ram Gopal Sahu and his wife Malti Devi, who remained in possession till 1970 -71 and later on sold the same to respondent Nos. 7 and 8 by registered deeds dated 13.3.1970 and 21.6.1971. The said purchaser also contested the application stating that the land in question was never entered as Mundari Khutkatti in the records of right and, therefore, provisions of Section 242 of the Act has no application.
(3.) THE restoration application was heard by the Sub -divisional Officer, Khunti who after recording finding that the lands were Bakast and not Mundari Khutkatti, rejected the restoration application. The petitioner -appellant then filed appeal before the Additional Collector who set aside the order of the Sub -divisional Officer holding that the land was Mundari Khutkatti belonging to the petitioner and he was entitled to restoration under Section 242 of the said Act, respondent No. 4 then preferred revision application before respondent No. 1, Commissioner South Chota -nagpur Division, Ranchi which was registered as Ranchi Revenue Revision No. 117/86. The Commissioner after reappreciating the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the land was not Mundari Khutkatti belonging to the petitioner and consequently the appellate order was set aside and the restoration application was dismissed. The petitioner then challenged the said order passed by the Commissioner before this Court in the writ petition. Learned single Judge by the impugned judgment dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner in revision. Hence this letters patent appeal.;