LAKSHMAN URAON, J. - (1.) THE petitioner -appellant, The Waxpol Industries Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at No. 9. Mittar House, 71, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Calcutta and its Branch Office at 68. Kanke Road, Dist. Ranchi, has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated 28.8.2000, passed in CWJC No. 2676/2000(R) by the learned Single Judge, submitting therein that a piece of land of Plot No. 95, Khata No. 64 of village Haratu, P.S. Namkum, Dist. Ranchi, measuring 3.78 acres was owned and occupied by the petitioner -appellant. The total area occupied by him comes to 10.49 acres where the appellant -petitioner is running a factory for manufacturing various products since 1960 after obtaining requisite permission from the Chief Inspector of Factories, Government of Bihar and other concerned authorities. The petitioner -appellant has stated that the land in question is recorded in the Revisional Record of rights under Sikmi Khata No. 12 in the name of Gopal Kumhar, son of Nathu Kumhar, as "Naukrana" land. After the death of Gopal Kumhar his two sons, Gandura Mahto and Chedia Mahto, inherited and possessed the said land. The petitioner -appellant has claimed that by custom and usage in the area Sikmi rights were and are heritable. The said Gopal Kumhar and his successor -in -interest became the settled raiyats with respect to the said plots. They sold the land to Parmanand Garg and Purnanand Garg by a registered Sale -Deed dated 11.4.61. Subsequently one Pandit Murulidhar Sharma claimed right, title and interest over the said plot of land. He claimed that he has purchased the said Plot No. 95 from the raiyats of Khata No. 64 several years back and he perfected his title through adverse possession. His title was confirmed by the Special Sub -Ordinate Judge, Ranchi in a decree dated 2.5.61 in Title Suit No. 43/61. The said P. Gargs purchased the said plot by registered Sale -deed dated 13.5.61 and subsequently sold 3 acres 28 decimals of land to Metal Packs Pvt. Limited by a sale -deed dated 30.9.61. The said company. Metal Packs. Pvt. Ltd., purchased the said land for establishment of factory. The appellant by separate sale -deed dated 30.9.61 purchased 50 decimals of land and amalgamated into his land. Subsequently in 1962 Metal Packs Pvt. Ltd. was amalgamated with the appellant and all the assets, liabilities, movable and immovable properties vested with the appellant and such amalgamation was confirmed by the Honble High Court at Calcutta by an order dated 6.9.62 in Company Petition No. 156/1962. The said lands of Plot No. 95 are non - agricultural land and the petitioner -appellant is running factory since 1961 -62, i.e., long prior to coming into force of Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, vide Regulation 1/1969. The land ceased to be raiyati land since then. While the appellant - petitioner was in possession of the land, the State of Bihar issued notification under Land Acquisition Act and certain land was acquired for M/s. Damodar Valley Refractories including the land. In this present appeal the award was also prepared and this petitioner -appellant was shown to be entitled to a sum of Rs. 33,959,50. However, the appellant - petitioner got the land deleted from the said land acquisition proceeding as such it can not be said that the appellant got the land by virtue of any illegal transfer as alleged by respondent No. 3. Ram Charan Pahan, son of recorded raiyat, Late Lattu Pahan.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner -appellant has submitted that the land was not a raiyati land. In 1962 the land was non -agricultural and the said land was acquired in a land acquisition proceeding by the State. However, the said plot was deleted from the proceeding as the petitioner -appellant had already purchased the said land from the Sikmidar in the year 1961. Thus he acquired indefeasible right, title and interest. The learned Special Officer (SAR), Ranchi, in SAR Case No. 152/87 ordered for restoration of the land in favour of respondent No. 3. The appeal was preferred before the respondent No. 4, Deputy Com missioner, Ranchi -cum - Appellate Authority. Ranchi in SAR Appeal No. 8R 15/95 -96. The same was also dismissed by an order dated 20.11.9.6. Against that order the petitioner - appellant preferred a revision before the respondent No. 2, Commissioner of Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Ranchi SAR Revision No. 590/96. However, the said revision was also dismissed. Then the petitioner -appellant filed CWJC No. 2676/ 2000(R) before this Court. The said writ petition was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 28.8.2000.
(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 has submitted that the petitioner -appellant has not proved the usage and custom prevalent in the area that a Sikmidar raiyat or a raiyat or under raiyat is heritable and transferable. Section 71 -A is specific which provides that: "If at any time, it comes to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that transfer of land belonging to a raiyat (or a Mundari Khunt -Kattidar or a Bhuinhari) who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes has taken place in contravention of Section 46 (or Section 48 or Section 240) or any other provisions of this Act or by any fraudulent method, (including decrees obtained in suit by fraud and collusion) he may, after giving reasonable opportunity to the transfer, who is proposed to be evicted, to show cause and after making necessary inquiry in the matter, evict the transferee from such land without payment of compensation and restore it to the transferor or his heir, or in case the transferor of his heir is not available or is not willing to agree to such restoration, resettle it with another raiyat belonging to Scheduled Tribes according to the Village custom for the disposal of an abandoned holding : Provided that if the transferee has, within 30 years from the date of transfer, constructed any building or structure on such holding or portion thereof, the Deputy Commissioner shall, if the transferor is not willing to pay the value of the same, order the transferee to remove the same within a period of six months from the date of the order, or within such extended time not exceeding two years from the date of the order as the Deputy Commissioner may allow, failing which the Deputy Commissioner may get such building or structure removed : Provided further that where the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that the transferee has constructed a substantial structure or building on such holding or portion thereof before coming into force of the Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1969, he may, notwithstanding any other provisions of the Act, validate to the transferor where the transferee either makes available to the transferor an alternative holding or portion thereof as the case may be, of the equivalent value of the vicinity or pays adequate compensation to be determined by the Commissioner for rehabilitation of the transferor : Provided also that if after an inquiry the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that the transferee has acquired a title by adverse possession and that the transferred land should be restored or resettled, he shall require the transferor or his heir or another raiyat, as the case may be, to deposit with Deputy Commissioner such sum of money as may be determined by the Deputy Commissioner having regard to the amount for which the land was transferred or the market value of the land, as the case may be and the amount of any compensation for improvements effected to the land which the Deputy Commissioner may deem fair and equitable.";