S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (1.) Aggrieved by order dated 11.10.2012 in SAR Revision No. 21 of 2007, the present writ petition has been filed. It is stated that one Masui Majhi filed an application under Sec. 71 -A of the CNT Act which was registered as R.P. Case No. 30 of 1999 -00. The said application was allowed vide order dated 20.10.2006 and restoration of land in favour of the said Masui Majhi was ordered. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 preferred SAR Appeal No. 126 of 2007 against order dated 20.10.2006 in R.P. Case No. 30 of 1999 -00 and the said appeal was dismissed on 5.12.2007. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 filed SAR Revision No. 21 of 2007. During the pendency of the revision petition, the said Masui Majhi died and in his place his widow and daughter were substituted as his legal heirs and successors.
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the said Masui Majhi filed application under Sec. 71 -A of the CNT Act as legal representative of the recorded tenants he had filed the said application on behalf of all the family members and therefore, the petitioners who are also descendants of the recorded tenant should have been impleaded in the revision case.
(3.) I find that the petitioner No. 1 claims himself son of one Sitol Majhi, who was son of Suna Majhi. The petitioner No. 1 has based his claim on the basis of a verification report by the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur however, the said report has not been brought on record. The petitioner No. 1 claims that under the Santhal Law of Succession, the wife and daughter of late Masui Majhi cannot inherit the property in question. It is not in dispute that application under Sec. 71 -A of the CNT Act was filed by the Masui Majhi. Neither in the R.P. Case No. 30 of 1999 -00 nor in SAR Appeal No. 126 of 2006 -07, the petitioners were made party. The petitioners have not produced a document to establish that the land in question was a joint family property and the parties remained in jointness. The genealogical table produced by the petitioners discloses that Masui Majhi was son of one Surju Majhi, who had two sons. However, the other son of Surju Majhi namely, Binod Majhi has not approached this Court. Whether the petitioners would inherit the property of late Masui Majhi or not is a question which can be adjudicated only in a separate proceeding and unless the petitioners are found successors of Masui Majhi, they could not have been impleaded as legal heirs and successors of the said late Masui Majhi. Considering the aforesaid facts, I find no infirmity in impugned order dated 11.10.2012 and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.;