- (1.) THIS petition has been filed by Radheshyam Mahto against the order dated 15th December, 1998 passed by Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in S.A.R. Revision No. 210 of 1996 rejecting the claim of the petitioner with regard to the land, bearing Plot No. 421, Khata No. 87, village Bargawa, measuring an area of 11 decimals.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts, giving rise to present proceedings, are that Respondent No. 6 filed an application before the Special Officer, Respondent No.4, under Section 71 -A of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. Special Officer vide his order dated 15th June, 1971 allowed the application and directed restoration of land in favour of Respondent No.6. This order came to be challenged by Madan Mohan Gope, son of petitioner, against whom direction was issued in appeal before the appellate authority. Appellate authority i.e. Respondent no. 3 vide his order dated 10th February, 1996 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Special Officer. This order became subject matter of challenge before the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in SAR. Revision No. 210 of 1996. This revision was preferred by Respondent No.6. The revisional authority vide his impugned order concurred with the findings of the Special Officer and set aside the order of the appellate authority. It is relevant to notice that the present petitioner, who happens to be father of Madan Mohan Gope, who was a party to the appeal, filed an application seeking intervention in the matter before the revisional authority. Basing his claim on Sada Hukumnama said to have been executed in the year 1943 for the settlement of the plot of land. He further relied upon decree of Civil Court said to be passed in his favour on 29th May, 1995. Civil Court in the, aforesaid decree had injected Respondent No.6, herein from interfering with the possession of the present petitioner over the Plot No. 421.
(3.) THE revisional authority, on consideration of the facts projected by the present petitioner, held that the decree was secured from the Civil Court without impleading the Deputy Commissioner as a party -respondent and in view of the provisions of sub -section (3) of Section 46(a) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, no proceedings lie without impleading the Deputy Commissioner as party. Thus, this decree has no value in law.;