S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THE writ petitioners -appellants being dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 30th August, 1999 passed by learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 3660 of 1998(R), preferred this appeal on the ground that they acquired right and title over the land in question and the application under Section 71A of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act (C.N.T. Act for short) preferred by 5th respondent, Poulus Oraon was not maintainable being barred by limitation.
(2.) THE land in question measuring 0.24 acres out of R.S. Plot No. 783 under Khata No. 7 is situated at village -Pugru, P.S. Hatia, District -Ranchi. It belonged to the ancestor of 5th respondent, Poulus Oraon, a Scheduled Tribe. Lakho Oraon (since deceased), father of 5th respondent filed an application under Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act before the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi for restoration of land in his favour, which was registered as SAR Case No. 10 of 1988 -89. The first revenue court corning to the conclusion that the land in question is wrongly in possession of appellants in contravention of Section 46 of C.N.T. Act. Vide order dated 18.8.1993, restored the land in favour of Lakho Oraon (since deceased), father of 5th respondent. The appellants thereafter preferred SAR Appeal No. 79 -R 15 of 1993 -94 which was dismissed on 4.10.1993 followed by dismissal of Revision case being Ranchi Revenue Revision No. 399 of 1993 as was preferred by the appellants. The appellants having lost before three revenue courts, moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3660 of 1998(R). Learned single Judge vide order dated 30th August, 1999 taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and the orders passed by three revenue courts, also came to the conclusion that the ancestor of 5th respondent was dispossessed from the property by fraudulent method by virtue of procuring compromise decree in their favour. In view of concurrent finding arrived at by the three authorities, learned single Judge did not choose to interfere with the order. It was also observed that no prima facie document of title in favour of writ petitioners appellants was produced before this Court. In this case, learned counsel for the appellants raised two questions, namely, (a) the application under Section 71 -A was not maintainable and barred by limitation and (b) even if it was maintainable, the courts should have allowed the benefit as per second proviso of Section 71 -A, appellants having made certain structure over the land in question.
(3.) IT is pertinent to mention that the appellants produced certain evidence to claim right, title, possession and construction of structure. In support of right, title and possession, only one compromise decree dated 18th December, 1958 passed by learned Munsif, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 279/58 was produced. Much stress was given on the terms of compromise but according to me, the appellants cannot derive any advantage in view of the language mentioned therein, if it is read with the relevant provisions of law. The compromise decree seems to have been reached between Most. Kusmi Grain widow of late Thusku Oraon, ancestor of 5th respondent and Md. Ali, ancestor of appellants. The plaintiff was a tribal, who sought for a decree for ejectment of defendant, Md, All. In the terms of compromise, it was mentioned that the defendants were in possession of land since 18 -19 years and have paid Rs. 200/ - to the plaintiff. They (defendants) have purchased the land and acquired raiyati right. Such declaration though made in the terms of compromise, cannot be accepted, there being no any evidence on record to suggest that the defendant, Md. Ali was in possession of the land since the year 1940 i.e. 18 -19 years prior to the compromise, nor it can be presumed that the defendant, Md. Ali on payment of consideration of amount of Rs. 200/ - to the plaintiff acquired raiyati right. Neither reference of any registered sale deed was given in the terms of compromise, nor the appellant produced any evidence before any of the court of law that an agreement was made or executed by the plaintiff. The details of lands have also not been shown therein. It is a settled law that for consideration amount more than Rs. 100/ - should be registered sale -deed. No person can acquire any right and title on the basis of oral or unregistered sale deed.;