M.Y.EQBAL,J. - (1.) THIS writ application is directed against the order dated 18.8.1994 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Ranchi Revenue Revision No. 17/1992 whereby he has affirmed the order dated 27.12.1991, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in SAR Appeal No. 17R -15/1986 -87 and 22R -15/1987 -88, and directed for restoration of the land out of plot No. 633 of khata No. 55 situated at village Kokar, P.S. Lalpur, district -Ranchi under the provisions of Section 71 -A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (shortly CNT Act).
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrowcompass : Respondent No. 5 who is the member of scheduled tribe filed an application against the petitioner under Section 71 -A of the CNT Act for restoration of three and half kathas of land of R.S. plot No. 633, khata No. 55 situated at village Kokar, Ranchi on the ground that he has been dispossessed from the said land. The restoration application was contested by the petitioner stating, inter alia, that he along with his brother purchased one acre of chapperbandi land out of the said R.S. plot No. 633 from Lakho Oraon and another by virtue of registered deed of sale dated 29.5.1959 for valuable consideration and came in possession of the same. The petitioner and his brother got their names mutated vide Mutation Case No. 252/1965 -66 and have been paying chapperbandi rent to the State of Bihar. It is contended by the petitioner that they also got their names mutated in the office of Ranchi Municipality and they are regularly making payments of taxes for the same: After purchase, they constructed a pucca house in accordance with the plan sanctioned by the Ranchi Improvement Trust. According to the petitioner, the land being the chapperbandi land, application for restoration of the said land under Section 71 -A of the CNT Act is not maintainable. It appears that in the earlier restoration proceedings orders were passed by the Special Officer, appellate authority and the revisional authority who directed for restoration of the land and ultimately the matter came to this Court in CWJC No. 713 of 1980(R) filed by the petitioner. This Court allowed the writ application in terms of the judgment and order dated 10.1.1984 and remitted the matter back to the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation with a direction that he will allow the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective cases. The relevant portion of the order passed in the said writ petition is quoted hereinbelow which reads as under : 'Learned Government Pleader No. 1 made his submission in support of the order passed by respondent No. 2. When we brought to his notice the order of the appellate, Court as contained in paragraph 5 of annexure 12 that it did not apply its mind in depth with regard to the contention of the petitioner that the land in question was chapperbandi, he fairly conceded that the matter should go back to respondent No. 4 to enable the parties to lead evidence on that question. As a final Court of fact that respondent No. 3 was required to come to a definite finding as to whether the land in question was chapperbandi, as alleged by the petitioner. It cannot be disputed that if a land is chapperbandi, no proceeding under Section 71 -A of the Act can be initiated for restoration of that land. If the land was chapperbandi, as alleged by the petitioner, it will be governed by the Transfer of Property Act and not by the Ghotanagpur Tenancy Act. Since the moot point is whether the land in question was chapperbandi land or not, for the ends of justice, it is necessary that the parties should be given opportunity to lead further evidence, if any, in support of their respective cases. We must observe that the reasoning given by respondent No. 3 in cursory manner that the land was not chapperbandi did not appeal to us. He discarded the certified copy of the return filed by the ex -landlord which showed that the land was chapperbandi on the ground that the original had not been brought on record. When there was nothing to controvert the certified copy of the return, respondent No. 3 could not have discarded it. Respondent No. 4, therefore, must take Into consideration the certified copy of the return filed by the ex -landlord, a copy of which is annexure 8 to this application along with other materials regarding chapperbandi.'
(3.) AFTER remand by this Court the Special Court reconsidered the matter afresh by allowing the parties to lead evidence. The Special Officer recorded a finding that the land appears to have been converted into chapperbandi land and, therefore, Section 71 -A of the CNT Act is not applicable. Against the said order respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner being the appellate authority allowed the appeal filed by respondent No. 5 and set aside the order passed by the Special Officer holding that the land in question was never converted into chapperbandi land. The petitioner then preferred revision before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division who dismissed the revision application and affirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Hence this writ application by the petitioner.;