APARESH KUMAR SINGH,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and Respondents.
(2.) Respondent No. 6 to 8 have succeeded in the restoration of the land comprising an area of .06 acres in Plot no. 1184, Khata no. 61 situate at village and P.S. Ghaghra, District Gumla under the provisions of Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 in SAR Case No. 27 of 2003-04 vide order dated 25.8.2004 (Annexure-3), upheld in SAR Appeal No. 14 of 2005-06 and SAR Revision No. 072 of 2005 vide order dated 29.10.2005 and 27.4.2006(Annexure-4 and 5 respectively). Learned SAR Court has upon consideration of the submission of the applicants/Respondent no. 6 to 8 and the opposite party/petitioner herein including the inquiry report submitted by the Circle Officer, Ghaghra, found violation of Section 46 of the Act of 1908 and directed restoration of possession. Petitioner defended himself in SAR proceedings relying upon the conveyance deed on plain piece of paper said to be executed on 11.1.1965 by one Soma Oraon for a consideration of Rs. 10,000/- and claimed to have come into exclusive possession thereof. The Circle Officer in his report has mentioned about the construction of structures over the said piece of land by the opposite party/ petitioner sometime in the year 1996. The plea of the petitioner on limitation also did not find any favour in the SAR Court in those circumstances. The appeal was preferred after about 14 months before the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla and was dismissed by order dated 29.10.2005 as being time barred. Applicant/petitioner herein took the plea of lack of knowledge of the order dated 25.8.2004 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gumla in their application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Petitioner also tried to substantiate the plea by contending that he was through out represented in the SAR proceedings, copy of the order sheet, whereof is also enclosed as Annexure-8 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 18.4.2017 in the present matter. According to him the order of SAR Court was passed behind his back and even after repeated queries the concerned Office Clerk never revealed the fact. This occasioned delay in preferring the appeal, which has not been considered at all by the Appellate Court while rejecting his appeal on the ground of delay. The revisional authority has also not found any merit in his case. It has also observed that appeal itself was delayed by more than 14 months.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all these questions including that of limitation in seeking restoration beyond the period of 30 years from the date of alleged dispossession in the year 1965 have not been taken into account by the inferior authorities while rejecting the plea. Matter therefore deserves to be remanded to the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on merits once again.;