- (1.) THE present writ petition is filed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction for quashing the order dated 24th December, 1995, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (Respondent No. 3) in Case No. 34R15 of 1993 -94 (Annexure -7) and the order dated 28.07.1998, passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi (Respondent No. 2) passed in S.A. Revision No. 542 of 1996 (Annexure -9).
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners while referring the impugned orders on Annexure -7 and Annexure -9 to the petition, submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as well as the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi have failed to appreciate the four main important issues involved in the matter while rejecting the Revision application. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Deputy Commissioner as well as the Commissioner, Ranchi both have failed to appreciate the fact that the land in question, was not a 'Chhaparbandi' land. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and submitted that the provision contained in Section 46 has not been complied with, as the requisite previous sanction was not obtained in the matter. However, the Deputy Commissioner has failed to appreciate this very crucial aspect of the matter. Another issue canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is with regard to Section 73 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the provision contained in Section 73 of the Act is of mandatory nature. However, the learned Deputy Commissioner as well as the Commissioner have failed to appreciate the provision contained in Section 73 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, while deciding the matter. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the cultivation of land and payment of rent are the two primary duties of the tenant but, unfortunately, the learned Deputy Commissioner as well as the Commissioner have not appreciated these aspects while deciding the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his submissions, has referred to and relied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Sundar Sao and Ors. -versus -Adhim Sao and Ors. reported in 2007 (2) J.C.R. 400 (Jhr.) and submitted that in this judgment, this Court has considered the provision of Section 73 and held that the said provision is mandatory in nature. It is further submitted that both the authorities have not properly considered this mandatory requirement of Section 73 in its proper perspective while deciding the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the issue of limitation is not properly considered by both the authorities. According to him, it is not correct to say that the proceedings were barred by the law of limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the Respondent no. 6 purchased the land in question by Registered sale deed dated 21st March, 1959 and therefore, from that date, 30 years are required to be computed in view of the Notification No. 604, dated 27.02.1974 of the Bihar Schedule Area Regulation, 1969 and therefore, according to him, the proceedings were initiated well within time and it cannot be said that the proceedings were barred by the law of limitation. However, both the authorities have not properly considered this aspect and failed to appreciate that the proceedings initiated by the petitioners were barred by the law of limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that though the land in question was situated in Ranchi, the auction of the property has taken place by virtue of the order passed by the Calcutta High Court. It is further submitted that requisite procedure under the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act was also not followed in the said proceedings and therefore, this aspect was required to be considered by both the authorities but it has not been properly dealt with and considered by the learned Deputy Commissioner as well as the Commissioner, Ranchi, while deciding the Revision application. 1996 (1) P.L.J.R. 294 has been considered by this Court. The learned counsel for the Respondents further submitted that this judgment was also cited before the authorities and it has been properly considered by the authorities and decided in favour of the present respondent by holding that the provision of Section 73 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act has no applicability, so far as the facts of the present case is concerned and therefore, it is submitted that the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to the applicability of Section 73 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and the judgment which has been referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Sundar Sao and Ors. -versus -Adhim Sao and Ors. reported in 2007 (2) J.C.R. 400 (Jhr.) has no relevance so far as the facts of the present case is concerned as the factual position was different in the said case. The learned counsel for the Respondent nos. 6 and 8 further submitted that so far as the point of limitation is concerned, both the authorities have considered this aspect taking into account the initial date of transaction in respect of the land in question i.e. the first sale deed executed in the year 1937 and from that date, even if it be considered period of limitation of 30 years, then also the proceedings initiated by the present petitioners were hopelessly time -barred. It is further submitted that both the authorities have properly considered this aspect in their orders and not committed any error while holding that the proceedings were barred by the law of limitation. It is further submitted that both the authorities have, after careful consideration of all the issues involved in the matter, decided the case in favour of the present respondents and therefore, the present petition filed by the petitioners may be dismissed as there are concurrent findings of fact as well as law on the issues involved in the matter. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and on perusal of the impugned orders, it transpires that the said proceedings were arisen out of Annexure -4 i.e. the order passed by the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi. On perusal of the said order, it appears that the said order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the Respondents herein. The said order was passed ex parte and thereby the land, in question, was ordered to be restored in favour of the petitioners. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the Respondent No.6 has approached the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi by way of filing Case No.34R15 of 1993 -94. On perusal of Annexure -7, it appears that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties before the Deputy Commissioner have been recorded in detail and thereafter, after careful consideration of all the submissions, the Deputy Commissioner has reached to the conclusion that it is established from the facts of the case that the petitioners and their predecessors in interest acquired this property by registered sale deed dated 26.05.1945. It is further held that in view of the first transfer in the year 1945 and also the subsequent transactions by the registered deeds including the purchase of land by the petitioners through auction made by the official liquidator, in pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta, the provision of Section 71 A of the Chhotangapur Tenancy Act is not attracted so far the facts of the present case is concerned. Accordingly, the order passed in S.A.R. 144 R 15 of 1986 -87 were ordered to be set aside. Thus, it appears that the learned Deputy Commissioner has taken into account the fact that the Respondent No. 6 has acquired this property by way of auction sale, arranged in pursuant to the orders of the Calcutta High Court in the liquidation proceedings initiated by the claimant. So far as the judgment delivered in the case of Sundar Sao and Ors. -versus -Adhim Sao and Ors. reported in 2007 (2) J.C.R. 400 (Jhr.) which has been referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is concerned, it appears that the said judgment was delivered in the context with the provision contained in Section 73 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the provisions contained therein are mandatory in nature. On perusal of the said judgment, it transpires that in the said case, the civil suit was filed by the plaintiff therein for declaration of their occupancy right over the suit land and the factual position was different than the present case and therefore, in view of the factual position, the Court held that the requisite procedure under Section 73 was required to be followed, whereas in the present case factual position is different and therefore, this Court is of the view that the said judgment has no applicability to the facts of the present case.
(3.) IT appears that being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order, the present petitioner has approached the Commissioner, Sought Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi by way of filing Revision application i.e. S.A.R. No. 542 of 1996. On perusal of the order (Annexure -9) passed by the Revisional authority, it appears that various points, which have been agitated and canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties before the the Revisional authority, have been discussed and dealt with at length by the learned Commissioner while deciding the matter. It appears that the point with regard to applicability of Section 71 A, another point with regard to applicability of Section 73 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and the issue with regard to the limitation and the various judgments which have been referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties have been discussed and dealt with properly in the judgment. On perusal of the judgment, it appears that the learned Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi has passed the said order after careful consideration of all the materials including the point of law raised before it and has not committed any error while rejecting the said Revision application.;