S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J. - (1.) THE appellant being dissatisfied with the order dated 9th September, 1997 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 3850 of 1996 (R) has challenged the same. By the foresaid order, the learned Single Judge asked the writ petitioner to avail alternative remedy of appeal and to bring to the notice of the appellate authority all the facts and points as raised in the writ petition who, in his turn, was directed to decide the same.
(2.) THE case of the appellant -writ petitioner is that the land bearing Plot Nos. 680, 683 and 684, Khata No. 57 measuring 2.20 acres, belongs to him. It was surrendered by the recorded ratyat in the year 1935 and settled to the grand - father of the appellant by Soda Hukumnama in the year 1935 and put him in possession. Since then the ancestors of the appellant were cultivating the lands, enjoyed peaceful possession and after their death, the appellant inherited the same being their legal heir and is in peaceful possession over the same. Further case of the appellant is that at the instance of his father, a revision case under Section 89 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (C.N.T. Act for short) was registered as M.J.C. No. 21/Mandar/1986 and it was allowed in favour of his father vide order dated 22nd July, 1988 for carrying out necessary corrections in the record. On the application of appellants father, Mutation Case No. 53/R/27/R 1988 -89 was instituted after notice to persons, including the 7th Respondent -Charwa Oraon and taking into consideration that the father of appellant was in possession, it was mutated in the name of his father.
(3.) THE grievance of the appellant is that the 7th Respondent filed an application under Section 71 -A of CNT Act, for its restoration in his favour. In the said case, his father was impleaded as party, though died on 3rd February, 1989. Without bringing the aforesaid fact to the notice of the competent authority, the proceeding under Section 71 -A of the CNT Act, proceeded against a dead person and impugned order was passed on 3rd June, 1994 in SAR Case No. 236/87 -88, in pursuance of which consequential letter dated 4th September, 1996 was issued to dispossess the appellant. Further case of the appellant is that the appellant was also not noticed having not substituted in place of his father and the orders were passed behind his back.;