- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 30.12.2005 passed by the S.D.O.-cum-Deputy Collector Land Reforms, East Singhbhum in B.P.L.E. Case No. 12/89-90 filed by the respondent No. 1 under Section 3 of the B.P.L.E. Act 1956. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 24.7.2006 passed in B.P.L.E. Appeal No. 22/06-07 by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur affirming the original order and the order passed by learned Commissioner, East Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa in Revision being B.P.L.E. Revision No. 28 of 2007 whereby learned Commissioner held that revision is not maintainable. By the aforesaid orders petitioner has been found to be encroacher over the land of Plot No. 2565 Mouza-Sakchi area 25 feet X 30 feet.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is legal heir and successor of Chintamani Prasad Son of Nand Kumar, who is in physical possession over the land since 1950 by constructing house and other structure within knowledge and adverse to the interest of the State of Bihar/Jharkhand and respondent No. 1, Tata Iron and Steel company Ltd., Jamshedpur (In short TISCO) and as such, he has acquired his right, title and interest over the said land. It is further submitted by the petitioner that petitioner has no other land or house at Jamshedpur and he is living over the land in question without any interruption after the death of said Chintamani Prasad. In the year 1989, the proceeding under Section 3 of the BPLE Act 1956 was initiated for removal of the said encroachment over the land mentioned in Schedule 'A' of the petition before the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Collector stating that on the basis of the lease registered on 6.8.1985 between the State of Bihar and the respondent No. 1-TISCO, the present petitioner has made encroachment in a portion of vacant land shown in Schedule 'A'. It is submitted that the petitioner appeared after notice and filed his show-cause on 12.12.2005 inter alia taking stand that proceeding is barred by limitation. The name of the petitioner has been entered into the record of rights published in the year 1955 and the possession of Chintamani Prasad has been shown in the aforesaid record of rights and the nature of the land has been mentioned as Makan Kutchha Khapraposh. The said final possession of Chintamani Prasad and the petitioner are continuing since prior to 1950 adverse to the interest of State of Jharkhand and TISCO, respondent No. 1.
(3.) It is further submitted that in the said show-cause, it has been also indicated that petitioner is residing with his family members upon the house constructed by Chintamani Prasad. However, it is submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Original Authority without considering the show-cause of the petitioner on 30.12.2005 (Annexure-4). Thereafter, the petitioner preferred BPLE Appeal No. 22 of 2006 before the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur against the order dated 30.12.2005. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur without appreciating the facts and circumstances as well as show-cause of the appellant/petitioner herein rejected the appeal and directed to remove the encroachment within 15 days. The said appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation vide order dated 24.7.2006 (Annexure-6). Thereafter, the petitioner filed Revision being BPLE Revision No. 28 of 2006 before the Court of Commissioner, Singhbhum, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 12.4.2007 holding that Revision is not maintainable under the Act of 1956. Learned counsel for the petitioner based on the aforesaid facts submits that the question raised in the present BPLE proceeding relates to complicated issue of facts relating to title and adverse possession of the petitioner and in a summary proceeding the petitioner could not have been directed to be removed as a encroacher. However, the respondent authorities have not taken into consideration his show-cause and the Appellate Authority has also dismissed the appeal without taking into account the specific ground taken in appeal on the point of limitation alone.;