- (1.) IN this writ application the petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.6.1988 passed by the Respondent No.3 contained in Annexure -1, whereby the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, dismissed the application of the petitioners tiled under Section 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act for restoration of the lands in Khata No. 16, Plot No. 323, area 0.11 acres situated in Village Morhabadi, P.S. Bariatu district Ranchi and also the revisional order of the Commissioner dated 20.7.1998, contained in Annexure -4, allowing the revision application filed by the Respondent No.4 herein.
(2.) THE facts in short are that with regard to the land mentioned above the petitioners had filed an application under section 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act before the Special Officer, S.A.R. for restoration of the same on the ground that the respondent no. 4 Augustin Surin got the above land transferred in his favour by fraudulent method on a sada sale deed. The said application was registered as S.A.R. Case No. 42/86 -87. The notices were issued to the respondent no. 4 August in Surin, who on receipt of the notice filed his written statement contesting the claim of the applicants/writ petitioners. The case of the respondent no. 4 is that both the parties are members of the Scheduled Tribes and the land in question was transferred by a registered sale deed after taking due permission of the Deputy Commissioner, who was the Competent Authority for that purpose under the Provisions of Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. Further case of the respondent no. 4 is that both the parties are resident of the area falling within the same police station and after the said transfer of the land he has constructed a building and, therefore, the land, which was legally and validly transferred in his name, cannot be restored to the applicants/writ petitioners under the provisions of Section 71 A of the C.N.T. Act.
(3.) THE Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation vide order as contained in Annexure -1 dated 24.6.1988, dismissed the petition under Section 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act holding that the applicant was given several opportunities to produce evidence in support of his claim that the opposite party was not a resident of Village Morhabadi but no such evidence was produced, on the other hand the opposite party established the fact that the land in question was sold to him after taking due permission of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and, therefore, the provisions of Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act was not violated.;