APARESH KUMAR SINGH,J. - (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State.
(2.) In view of the order proposed to be passed herein-after, no notices are required to be issued on Respondent No. 4. The order dated 27.02.2017 which contains the grievance of the petitioner, is reproduced hereunder: "Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the order passed in another writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2172 of 1999(R) (Annexure- 7) dated 12.3.2001 by the learned Single Judge of this Court where under order dated 28.6.1999 passed in restoration proceedings i.e. SAR Case No. 593 of 1994 against Gauri Shankar Prasad was quashed while remanding the matter for decision within a period of 3 months. Order dated 9.6.2002 passed by the SAR Court in Case No. 593 of 1994-95(Annexure-8) is referred to in support of the submission that application of restoration for land described in Khata no. 236, Plot No. 2626, area 15 Katas out of 27 Kathas was rejected. It is submitted that petitioner has thereafter been taken by surprise by notice at Annexure- 9 dated 30.3.2015 issued for delivery of possession by the Respondent No. 3, Circle Officer, Ranchi of the same piece of land in reference to same SAR Case No. 593/1994-95. On objection being made by Annexure-10 dated 9.4.2015, the impugned notice at Annexure-11 in connection with the same piece of land however referred to different SAR Case No. 739 of 2005-06 has been again issued by the Respondent No. 3, Circle Officer, Ranchi. Petitioner has therefore approached this Court as no certified copy of the proceedings or the order of the SAR Case No. 739/2005-06 has been issued to the petitioner while he is being threatened from eviction of his residential house situate on the said plot. Learned counsel for the Respondent State seeks and is allowed 2 weeks time to obtain instructions and file his response. Let the matter appear after 2 weeks under the same heading. In the meantime, status quo as on today be maintained in respect of the property in question."
(3.) State has thereafter filed a counter affidavit enclosing the order sheet of SAR Case No. 739/2005-06 initiated by one Budhram Pahan, son of Bigal Pahan of village Baragain Thana-Sadar, district Ranchi against Kusum Devi, mother of the petitioner, seeking restoration of a piece of land bearing Khata No. 236, Plot No. 2626 Mouza Badagai P.S. No. 184 having an area of 15 Kattha under section 71(A) of Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act.;