D.K.SINHA, J. - (1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal arises oat of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J. C. No. 1343 of 1999(R) on 8.10.2002 of this court, whereby the wit petition of the appellant was dismissed affirming the revisional order passed by the Commissioner of South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi with the observation, On perusal of Annexure -3, the revisional order, it transpires that the learned Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, has considered the factual aspect, of the matter and also the legal aspect, particularly 3rd proviso of Sec. 71 -A of the C.N.T. Act. The learned Commissioner has also considered the fact that two courts below have not considered the factum of construction of substantial structure on the land and, therefore, they have arrived on some erroneous consideration and this has been corrected by the learned Commissioner in the revisional order. In the decision reported in 1987 BLT (Rep) 303 (Pat) RB it has been held that the revisional powers are wide enough to correct errors of law and the revisional authority may correct errors of fact also.
(2.) THE grievance of the appellant herein was that the learned Single Judge as well as the respondent No. 2, Revisional Court have come to an erroneous finding that the respondent Nos.6 & 7 perfected their title by adverse possession. Admittedly, respondent Nos. 6 & 7 claimed their title through registered deed of sale of the year 1976 and the restoration case was filed by the appellant in the year 1992 within the period of limitation of 30 years. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that 3rd proviso of Sec. 71 -A of the C.N.T. Act could not be attracted in the facts and circumstances of the ease for want of any substantial evidence before the Revisional Court and the same was erroneously affirmed by the learned Single Judge. We have meticulously gone through the facts on the record as well as the application of law therein. Admittedly, the land of R.S. Plot No. 480 was surrendered by the recorded raiyat i.e. predecessor -in -interest of the appellant to the ex -landlord by the registered surrender deed dated 5.8.1938 and the same land was settled on 21.11. 1939 with one Sk. Abdul Rahman, who after some time sold the land by registered sale deed dated 21.11.1946 to one Deep Chand Poddar which was purchased by Sri Jagdish Prasad Agarwal (respondent No. 6) in the year 1976. The Revisional Court observed that the land in question was surrendered in the year 1938 and the petition for restoration was filed in the year 1992 i.e. after a period of 44 years and in that manner the appellant and his predecessor -in -interest remained dispossessed beyond the period of 30 years. It was further observed that any person remaining 12 years in continuous possession prior to coming into force of Scheduled Area Regulation, 1969 and/or 30 years on the date of filing petition of restoration, acquired title by adverse possession.
(3.) RESPONDENT no.6 had mentioned that a substantial structure was constructed prior to enactment of Scheduled Area Regulation, 1969 over (sic) land in question which was admitted by the appellant in the written argument before the Revisional Court. It was held on merit after discussion by the Revisional Court that the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 acquired title by adverse possession who constructed substantial structure and therefore the lane should not and cannot be restored under the 3rd proviso of Sec. 71 -A of the C.N.T. Act and so the restoration of land to the appellant did not arise.;