M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 21.7.2006 passed in CWJC No. 2470 of 1999 (R), whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The petitioner being a member of Schedule Tribe filed an application under Section 71 -A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against respondent No. 5 - Shiv Charan Das claiming restoration of 36 decimals of land of village Satpura in the district of Singhbhum, The case of the petitioner -appellant was that the land in question comprised within R.S. Plot No. 22 under Khata No. 14 originally recorded in the Record of Rights prepared in the year 1934 in the name of the pre -decessor -in -interest of the appellant. The land in question was surrendered in favour of ex -landlord by a registered deed dated 16.10.1941 without permission of the Deputy commissioner. The said land was settled in favour of Puran Chandra Pusti and Krishna Chandra Das by registered deed dated 7.8.1952. The appellants case was that he was in possession of the land in question till 1964 and thereafter he has been illegally dispossessed. The said application was allowed and the land in question was directed to be restored. Respondent No. 5 then preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner against the said order passed by the D.C.L.R., Ghatsila, but the appeal was dismissed and the order of restoration was affirmed. Respondent No. 5 thereafter preferred revision before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi. The Commissioner being the revisional authority, after hearing the parties, set aside the order of restoration passed by the D.C.L.R. as well as the Deputy Commissioner and held that the restoration application itself was barred by limitation. The appellant then challenged the order passed by the Commissioner by filing the aforementioned writ petition. The learned single Judge after considering the entire facts of the case affirmed the order passed by the Commissioner and dismissed the writ petition.
(3.) WE have heard Mr. K.P. Mitra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mrs. Jaya Roy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5.;