R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) BOTH the connected writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) WRIT petitioner -Subhash Singh is aggrieved by the order dated 27.9.1996, passed by the Revisional Authority -Commissioner, by which he directed to demarcate the area where the actual building claimed by Subhash Singh stands along with a reasonable set off, and to restore the rest of the land in favour of Buchwa Oraon. It is further ordered that Subash Singh will pay compensation to Buchwa Oraon only for such demarcated area. Writ petitioner -Anil Linda is aggrieved by the same order to the extent that the Commissioner has not passed order in his favour in view of the fact that he purchased a portion of the land from Buchwa Oraon. Buchwa Oraon, a scheduled tribe, filed an application under Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act (the Act for short) for restoration of his 84 decimals of land of plot No. 1039 -Khata No. 26, which was registered as S.A.R. Case No. 86/1984 -85. His case was that he, a recorded tenant, was illegally dispossessed by Dhrub Narayan Singh and Raghubir Singh, about seven years ago. D.N. Singh and R. Singh did not appear inspite of notice. Ultimately, on 29.3.1986, his application was allowed, by the court of Special Officer. D.N. Singh and R. Singh filed an appeal but allowed it to be dismissed for non -prosecution and then filed a revision before the Commissioner. The Commissioner remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority - the Additional Collector, for hearing on merits but surprisingly the Additional Collector also remanded the matter to the Special Officer with a direction to examine the claim of the parties, consider their merit, including the claim of structure and payment of compensation (a copy of this order dated 18.12.1989, passed in S.A.R. Appeal No. 21 R15/1986 -87 filed during the hearing, is kept on the record).
(3.) D .N. Singh and R. Singh justified their possession, on the basis of 'Chapparbandi' (Homestead) Settlement, and contended that Section 71A of the Act is not applicable to such settlement.;