R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) HEARD . Petitioner has challenged the orders dated 23.9.1997 passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi (respondent No. 2) dismissing his revisions -S. A. R. Rev. No. 29 and 30 of 1992 (Annexure 6 and 6A); and the orders dated 20.2.1992 and 28.2.1992 passed by the Additional Collector, Gumla (respondent No. 2) in S.A.R. Appeal Nos. 16R1.5 and 17R15 of 1989 -90 (Annexure 5 and 5A) whereby the order dated 11.7.1989 passed by the D.C.L.R. -cum -Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Gumla (respondent No. 4) in S.A.R. Case Nos. 85 and 86/1988 -89 was set aside.
(2.) S .A.R. Case No. 85/188 -89 was registered on the application dated 20.9.1988 for restoration of 25 decimals of land filed by Augustus Barwa Oraon (respondent No. 5) and S.A.R. Case No. 86/1988 -89 was registered on the application dated 26.10.1988 filed by Habartus Tigga. (respondent No. 6), both members of Schedule Tribe, for restoration of 23 decimals of land (Plot No. 264, Khata No. 2/2 and 2/1, P.S. Chainpur -Gumla), under Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act (the Act for short). Their case in short was as follows. They purchased the said lands from the petitioner by registered sale deeds dated 29.6.1973 and 12.6.1978 respectively. Mutation was done in their favour. But they were forcefully dispossessed by the petitioner on 15.3.1988 after getting their endorsements done on the back of the sale deeds to the effect that - after receiving some more amount the lands were given back to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner in short is as follows. The applications under Section 71A of the Act were not maintainable. The lands were mortgaged with respondents No. 5 and 6, but they got the said documents registered as sale deeds fraudulently. After couple of years petitioner learnt about this fraud and accordingly, respondents No. 5 and 6 after receiving some more amounts, cancelled the sale deeds and returned the lands to the petitioner, which is clear from the endorsements made by them on the back of the sale deed. Respondents 5 -6, could at best file suits for recovery of possession, as they themselves being transferees were not entitled to file applications for restoration under Section 71A of the Act, in view of the judgment reported in 1990 PLJR 604 (Ram Chander Sahu). Moreover respondents 5 and 6 were not raiyats. In any event, they could not acquire any right over petitioners privileged lands, in view of "the judgment reported in 1948 Patna 357 (Triveni Prasad Bhagat).
(3.) THE said applications tiled by respondents No. 5 and 6 were dismissed by the D.C.L.R. -cum -Special Officer on 11.7.1989. He held that the cancellation of the sale deeds by such endorsements was not permissible but on the ground that forcible dispossession did not amount to transfer he held that applications under Section 71A of the Act were not. maintainable. In the appeals filed by respondents 5 and 6, the Additional Collector set aside the said orders and allowed the restoration application filed by them on the basis of the Judgment dated 18.7.1991 passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 955 of 1991, (Pandey Oraon v. Ram Chander Sahu 1992 Supp (2) SCC 77). Against these orders, petitioner preferred revisions which were dismissed by the Commissioner.;