Rajesh Shankar, J. - (1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.06.1996 passed by the respondent no. 4 - Special Officer, S.A.R, Sadar, Ranchi, whereby the land restoration case filed by the respondent no. 5 under Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the "CNT Act") was allowed. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 20.11.1996 passed by the respondent no. 3the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Appeal No. 49 R 15 of 1996-97 as also the order dated 28.08.2001 passed by the respondent no. 2 Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Revenue Revision No. 2 of 1997, whereby the appeal and revision preferred by the petitioners were rejected.
(3.) The factual background of the case is that the land under R.S Khata No. 49, Plot No. 1618 situated in villagePundag, P.S Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi measuring an area of 81 decimals (hereinafter referred as the said land) was recorded in R.S Khatian in the name of Roma Munda, Sanicharwa Munda and Koka Munda, all sons of Bigla Munda. Most. Jambi, widow of Roma Munda for self and as guardian of her minor sons Mahadeo Munda and Balak Munda along with Sanicharwa Munda being the surviving heirs of the recorded tenants, surrendered the said land to the then landlord Baralal Sri Kandrap Nath Sahdeo of Palkot Garh by virtue of a registered deed of surrender dated 13.05.1939. Thereafter, the landlord orally settled the said land along with other lands to Bidai Mahto @ Bidai Teli coupled with delivery of possession and receipt of rent which was also confirmed with a Hukumnama dated 30.09.1939. Said Bidai Mahto sold the said land to Jugal Mahto (father of petitioner nos. 1 to 4 and husband of petitioner no. 5) by way of registered deed of sale dated 10.05.1958 and also put possession of the said land to him. The petitioners came in possession of the said land after the death of Jugal Mahto. In the year 1991, one Paras Nath Munda filed a petition for restoration of the said land being S.A.R Case No. 105 of 1991-92 against Bharat Mahto, son of Bidai Mahto and subsequently, Jugal Mahto was also added as party. The Special Officer, S.A.R, Ranchi (respondent no. 4) vide order dated 13.06.1996 allowed the restoration application in favour of the respondent no. 5. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.06.1996, Jugal Mahto filed S.A.R Appeal No. 49R 15/1996-97 before the respondent no. 3 and vide order dated 20.11.1996, the order of the respondent no. 4 was partially modified and the case was remanded to the S.A.R. court for fixing compensation as per third proviso to section 71A of the CNT Act. Thereafter, Jugal Mahto filed Revenue Revision No. 2 of 1997 before the respondent no. 2 which was also rejected vide order dated 28.08.2001.;