- (1.) Aggrieved by the decision to prefer appeal against order dated 13.8.2013 by which, transfer in the name of the petitioner has been validated, the present writ petition has been filed. The brief facts of the case are that, land in Khata No. 103 Plot Nos. 1533 and 1534 measuring 5.4 Kathas of Mauza-Hinoo, Thana No. 225 was recorded in the name of one Yugal Kishor Bhagat, the landlord of the village. The land in question was settled with one Kanta Singh in permanent Bandobasti with transferable and inheritable Chhaparbandi right by the erstwhile landlord namely, Yugal Kishor Bhagat. At the time of vesting of Jamindari, Jamabandi return was filed by the landlord and in the Government records, the land in question has been shown as Chhaparbandi land in possession of Kanta Singh and Sita Ram Singh. The said Kanta Singh and Sita Ram Singh executed sale deed on 26.11.1990 in favour of mother of the petitioner and it was mutated in the name of Smt. Raj Kumari Devi vide Mutation Case No. 712/1991-92. The petitioner thereafter, constructed pucca building in which, the petitioner is residing. The Ranchi Regional Development Authority vide B.C. Case No. 269/1994 has accorded sanction for the building and the petitioner is paying rent. The respondent Nos. 5 and 6 filed SAR Case No. 68/2013-14 under Section 71-A of CNT Act, 1908 alleging dispossession for the last 35-40 years. The petitioner appeared in the proceeding and filed his objection and the Special Officer, SAR Court, Ranchi vide order dated 30.8.2013 granted compensatory amount of Rs. 2,20,000/- per decimal payable to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The petitioner accordingly paid a part of the compensation amount to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. However, SAR Appeal No. 178-R-15/2014-15 has been filed against the order passed by the Special Officer, Ranchi. Challenging the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi-respondent No. 3 in preferring appeal against the order passed in SAR Case No. 68/2013-14, the present writ petition has been filed.
(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
(3.) Challenging the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 3 in issuing direction for preferring appeal against the order passed in SAR Case No. 68/2013-14, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provision of the CNT Act is not applicable in the present case. The Deputy Commissioner is not an aggrieved party against the order passed by the Special Officer (SAR Court) and therefore, no appeal can be preferred by the State. The provisions under CNT Act are intended at protecting the right of the tribals and there is a specific provision under Section 71-A of the CNT Act for grant of compensation to the aggrieved tribal. In the present case, admittedly the petitioner has constructed a pucca building and he has been residing there since last more than 20 years and therefore, keeping in view the above facts, the Special Officer, SAR Court exercised power under proviso to Section 71-A of the CNT Act and granted compensation of Rs. 2,20,000/- per decimal. The applicant Nos. 5 and 6 are not aggrieved by order passed by the Special Officer and they have received part-payment in terms of order dated 30.8.2013 in SAR Case No. 68/2013-14 and therefore, the SAR Appeal No. 178-R-15/2014-15 has been filed without authority of law and therefore, the proceeding in SAR Appeal No. 178-R-15/2014-15 is liable to be quashed.;