P.K.BALASUBRAMNYAN, J. - (1.) AN extent of 17.88 acres of Bhuinhari land in R.S. Khewat No. 6/1 to 6/8 of village Baradih in the District of Ranchi recorded in the names of different Bhuinhars was sold in auction on 20.12.1937 in Certificate Case No. 144/1936 -37 instituted on account of non -payment of rent and cess. The land was purchased by the Manager of Ward and encumbered estate Lach -charagarh. The auction purchaser took delivery of the property on 20.12.1937. Subsequently, with the permission of the Deputy Commissioner, the land was settled in favour of one Harkhman Singh. That was by a hukumnana dated 1.2.1940 and the annual rent payable was Rs. 24/ - and the cess. Harkhman Singh, in his turn, sold the land to Matin Kaur 3.4.1945. It is claimed that Matin Kaur got the land mutated in her name and was paying rent annually and continued to be in possession.
(2.) THE father of the appellant herein, (The appellant was respondent No. 5 in the writ petition), Dhore Munda, filed Title Suit No. 247 of 1947 on the file of the Munsif Court at Ranchi for a declaration that the sale certificate was void, fraudulent and without jurisdiction and prayed for recovery of possession of the property. The auction purchaser was impleaded as a defendant. That suit was dismissed and it appears that it was dismissed for default. An attempt was made to get the dismissal set aside by invoking Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But that application was also dismissed. An appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed as Misc. Appeal No. 15 of 1949 in an attempt to get the suit restored, but that Miscellaneous Appeal was also dismissed for default on 8.2.1950. Thus, the attempts made by the father of the appellant to get back the property by way of suit failed. Thereafter, the uncle of the appellant initiated a proceeding for restoration of possession under Tana Bhagat Raiyat 'sAgricultural Land Restoration Act, 1947. On 12.9.1970, the application was rejected on the ground that such an application for restoration was not maintainable and the authority before whom it was filed had no jurisdiction to entertain such an application. That proceeding also thus came to an end.
(3.) THEREAFTER , in the year 1976, the appellant filed an application for restoration of the land by invoking Section 71 -A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On 1.2.1977, the authority concerned rejected the application holding that the application was not maintainable. The said dismissal also stood. Thereafter in the year 1982, the appellant again filed a review application, not against Matin Kuar who had purchased the property from Harkhman Singh, but only against her two sons. The two sons of Matin Kuar, inter alia, contended that the person to be impleaded was their mother, the purchaser from Harkhman Singh and without impleading her, the proceeding cannot go on. The authority concerned combined the two applications and took it up as Case No. 2/82 -83 and as one under Section 48 of the Act, without considering the plea of the respondents before him that their mother, the purchaser, was the party, who was to be impleaded, the authority passed an order on 12.6.1983, ordering restoration of possession. It may be noted that this was done without impleading Harkhman Singh also in whose favour the land was settled after the predecessor of the appellant was dispossessed. An appeal was filed by the sons of Matin Kuar challenging the order of the original authority directing restoration. That appeal No. 16/36 of 1983 -84 was allowed by the Additional Collector, the appellate authority, and the original authority 'sorder for restoration was set aside. The appellant filed a revision, Revenue Revision No. 67 of 1984, before the Commissioner challenging the decision of the appellate authority. By order dated 14.7.1987, that revision was allowed by the Commissioner, who set aside the order of the appellate authority and restored the order of the original authority directing restoration of possession. In revision also, it must be noted that Matin Kuar was not made a party.;