- (1.) THE present petitioner by way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 11.2. 2012 passed by respondent no.2, Land Reform Deputy Collector whereby a S.A.R. case no. 544/2008 -09/T.R. 14/2008 -09 (Annexure -2) filed by the petitioner is dismissed on the ground that the same is barred by principle of res -judicata. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents at length. Perused the impugned order as well as other materials placed on record.
(2.) IT appears from the record that the petitioner had filed a S.A.R Case No.544/2008 -09 in the court of Land Reform Deputy Collector, Sadar, Ranchi for restoration of the land situated at Mauza - Similiya, P.S. No.139, Khata No.211 & 212, Plot No. 781, area - 1.73 acres, Plot No. 777, area - 0.52 acres and plot no. 778 area 1.27 acres total area 3.52 acres. The learned Land Reforms, Deputy Collector, Ranchi rejected the application as it was barred by principle of res judicata. The learned Land Reforms, Deputy Collector has very elaborately discussed the facts of the case and taken note that one Title Suit being no.9/62 was filed by one Anpurna Devi was decreed in her favour on the basis of compromise and no appeal was filed against the said order. It also appears that Learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector has also taken note of previous land restoration case being S.A.R Case No. 31 of 1985 and 32 of 1985 which was filed for restoration of the land in question by Dheneshwar Ram Ohdar and Chatur Ram Ohdar S/o Vije Ram and Gandauri Ram and Janak Ram and the same was dismissed way back on 16.8.1985. It appears that the said order was never challenged by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a proceeding u/s 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 cannot be rejected as it was in relation to dispossession of tribal raiya. It was alleged in the said proceedings that petitioner has been dispossessed by fraudulent compromise decree of a civil court.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the event of vesting of Zamindari interest, Bakast lands ceased to become a raiyati land therefore holder of a Bakast land have become raiyats within the meaning of section 6 of the C.N.T Act and can initiate proceeding u/s 71A of the Act.;