S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA,J. - (1.) THIS application has been preferred by petitioner against the order dated 12th October, 1993 passed by 2nd respondent in Misc. Revision No. 100 of 1991. The Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh on the basis of application filed by 3rd respondent suo motu took up the matter and registered a Misc. Revision case No. 100 of 1991 and after notice and hearing the parties, set aside the appellate order dated 14th November, 1991 passed by Collector, Giridih in Giridih Appeal No. 30 of 1990 which was decided in favour of petitioner.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that his father late Prafulla Chandra Mishra got the land in question having plot No. 261, 262 and 263 under Khata No. 73 of village -Barmasia, P.S. and District -Giridih by raiyati settlement through a customary Hukumnama executed by Gaibi Nath Mishra, Ex -landlord on 18th Magh, 1341 Fasli, corresponding to the year 1934 A.D. His ancestors took possession and since then the predecessor in interest and thereafter the petitioner is in possession. The ancestors of petitioner paid the rent to the Ex -landlord till the vesting of intermediary interest under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short B.L.R. Act, 1950). In the return submitted to the State of Bihar, names of the raiyat with their respective possession over the land, tank etc, were shown. The name of Prafulla Chandra Mishra was mentioned as raiyat with respect to plot No. 261, 262, 263 and 264. Further case of the petitioner is that the lands as shown below were mutated in the name of Prafulla Chandra Mishra in pursuance of order dated 15th December, 1971 passed in Misc. case No. 17/1971 -72, such as: - - Khata Plot Area73 261 0.30 acresDo 262 0.55 acres0.85 acres As the enquiry was going on with regard to other plots, they were not mutated at that time. It appears that a dispute relating to land was raised by the Secretary of Indian Medical Association, Giridih Branch with regard to Plot Nos. 261, 262, 263 and 264 of Khata No. 73. The plea as was taken by petitioner is that 18 decimals in plot No. 264 of Khata No. 73 adjacent to plot No. 263 was orally settled by the Ex -landlord with Jagarnath Mishra, grand father of Prafulla Chandra Mishra. Prafulla Chandra Mishra came in possession over the said plot No. 264 and paid rent to the Ex -landlord. It is not clear as to why Jagarnath Mishra had not taken possession over the land measuring 18 decimals of plot No. 264, if it was orally settled with him by Ex -landlord. It appears that a Title Suit No. 6 of 1975 was filed by the Indian Medical Association, Giridih Branch which was decreed against the petitioner and others. The details of the suit have not been given by the petitioner in the writ petitioner for the reasons best known to him. Against the decree passed in suit, a Title Appeal No. 11 of 1981 was preferred by the aggrieved person which was decreed on the basis of a compromise petition filed by the parties i.e. heirs of Prafulla Chandra Mishra and Indian Medical Association, Giridih Branch. In view of the compromise made between the parties, the judgment of the trial Court was set aside. The details of the appeal have also not been given by the petitioner for the reasons best known to him though it relates to lands in question. Subsequently, an application was preferred by 3rd respondent, who alleged that the appellate order was not passed on merit but on the basis of a fraudulent compromise reached between the parties. Taking into consideration the aforesaid allegation, the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh suo motu took up the matter and registered a Misc. Revision No. 100 of 1991. After notice and hearing the parties, the revisional authority reversed the appellate order.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh had no jurisdiction to register a revision case on the basis of an application of a stranger i.e. 3rd respondent, who never claimed any interest over the land. It was further submitted that the land having been settled in the year 1934 A.D., the respondents had no jurisdiction to reopen the matter to annual the settlement under Section 4 (h) of the B.L.R. Act, 1950. The authorities had jurisdiction to cancel settlement/transfer of a land, if made at any time after 1 -1 -1946 to defeat any provision of B.L.R. Act or with a view to cause loss to the State Government or to obtain higher compensation. ;