D.N.PATEL,J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 24th August, 2015 delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 6522 of 2013, whereby the petition preferred by these appellants was dismissed and hence, original petitioners have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) Factual Matrix The property in question pertaining to Khata No. 20, 21 and 48 is situated at village Timra, P.S. Karra, Thana No. 24 and village Jaria, District Ranchi (Now Khunti), State of Jharkhand. The genealogical table relating to the property in question reads as under : The property in question was sold by Patras Munda, who is the recorded tenant, on 15th June, 1948 to Appellant No. 1-Beni Prasad Munda @ Benu Prasad Herenge and Benjamin Munda. The property was transferred through a registered sale-deed. Nothing happened for years together and decades together and on one fine morning on 22nd June, 1993, an application was filed by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 under Section 71A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, challenging the registered sale-deed dated 15th June, 1948, which was registered as S.A.R. Case No. 32 of 1993-94 before Schedule Area Regulation Officer-cum-D.C.L.R, Khunti. Without looking to the limitation etc. of 30 years and without giving opportunity of being heard to the purchasers of the property, order dated 15th March, 1997 (Annexure 1 to the memo of this L.P.A.) was passed in favour of the applicants of S.A.R. Case No. 32 of 1993-94 and immediately respondent Nos. 6 and 7 got possession because of this order. Appeal was preferred by these appellants, being S.A.R. Appeal No. 14R15/1997-98, before the Appellate Authority challenging the order passed in S.A.R. Case No. 32 of 1993-94 dated 15th March, 1997. Said S.A.R. Appeal preferred by these appellants was allowed and the order passed in S.A.R. Case No. 32 of 1993-94 was quashed and set aside. The possession which was taken away from these appellants by virtue of the order passed in S.A.R. Case 32 of 1993-94 now does not remain in existence. Against the order passed in S.A.R. Appeal No. 14R15/1997-98, which is dated 19th August, 1998 (Annexure 3 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal), no appeal has further been preferred by respondent Nos. 6 and 7. The matter was remanded to decide S.A.R. Case No. 32/1993-94 afresh after quashing the earlier order dated 15th March, 1997 passed in S.A.R. Case No. 32/1993-94. S.A.R. Case No. 32/1993-94 has been decided afresh and now wisdom has prevailed upon the Court concerned and limitation etc. must have been carefully gone through that a registered sale-deed of the year 1948 is challenged in the year 1993. Earlier, no hearing was given to the purchasers of the property. Keeping in mind all these points, ultimately S.A.R. Case No. 32/1993-94 was dismissed by vide Order dated 24th May, 2002 (Annexure 4 to the memo of this L.P.A.). Thus, the fact remains that the very basis of the dispute relating to the property in question, which was an order passed in S.A.R. Case No. 32/1993-94 dated 15th March, 1997 (Annexure 1 to the memo of this L.P.A.) was not only quashed and set aside by the appellate authority vide order dated 19th August, 1998 (Annexure 3 to the memo of this L.P.A.), but, also after re-hearing the case, after remand, the S.A.R. case preferred by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 bearing number S.A.R. Case No. 32/1993-94 was dismissed vide order dated 24th May, 2002 (Annexure 4 to the memo of this L.P.A.). Thus, respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have continued with the possession unauthorisedly. For getting possession of their property these appellants had to file restitution application before the Officer concerned, who had passed order in S.A.R Case No. 32/1993-94. For no reason, whatsoever, the prayer for restoration of possession was rejected vide order dated 3rd July, 2007 in SAR Misc. Case No. 01/2006-07 (Annexure 5 to the memo of this L.P.A.), against which these appellants preferred appeal. This appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 24th January, 2013 in Appeal No. 50R-15/2008-09 (Annexure 6 to the memo of this L.P.A.). Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the orders passed by the Special Officer as well as by the Appellate Authority as they have not restored possession, despite the S.A.R. Case No. 32 of 1993-94 was dismissed which was preferred by respondent Nos. 6 and 7, a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 6522 of 2013 was preferred before this Court and it was dismissed vide order dated 24th August, 2015 and hence, present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioners.
(3.) Arguments canvassed by the counsel appearing for the Appellants : Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the property in question was sold by one Patras Munda to the predecessors in Title of these appellants through a registered sale-deed. For decades together nothing has happened and in the year 1993 an application was preferred by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 challenging the said sale-deed under Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and without giving any opportunity of being heard to these appellants and without any application of mind regarding long lapse of time of more than years, ex-parte order was passed in S.A.R. Case No. 32/1993-94 in favour of respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Vide order dated 15th March, 1997 this application was allowed in utter violation of the basic principles of Transfer of Property Act and Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and immediately the possession was given to respondent Nos. 6 and 7 of the property in question which was in possession of these appellants and their predecessors in Title from the year 1948. Appeal preferred by these appellants was allowed and the order passed in S.A.R. Case No. 32/1993-94 was quashed and set aside vide order dated 19th August, 1998 by Appellate Authority (Annexure 3 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal) and the matter was remanded. After remand of the matter, fresh order was passed and S.A.R Case No. 32/1993-94 was dismissed vide order dated 24th May, 2002 (Annexure 4 to the memo of the L.P.A.). Thus, very basis of giving possession of the property in question to respondent Nos. 6 and 7 does not remain in existence. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated while dismissing the restoration of possession application, initially by Special Officer and thereafter, by the Appellate Authority and thereafter, by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition and hence this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by these appellants. The respondent No. 6 and 7 have never challenged the ownership of the property of these appellants before any competent Civil Court. No civil suit has been instituted by the respondent Nos. 6 and 7. Despite these facts, unnecessarily while deciding the restoration of possession application by the Special Officer, thereafter the appeal by the appellate authority and the writ petition by the learned Single Judge, they have mentioned that if there is any dispute, Civil Court has the jurisdiction. In the facts of the present case, as submitted by the counsel appearing for the appellants, nobody has challenged the Title of these appellants with respect to the property in question by filing any civil suit. These facts have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, also the judgment and order dated 24th August, 2015 delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 6522 of 2013 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Simultaneously, the order dated 3rd July, 2007 passed in SAR Misc. Case No. 01/2006-07 (Annexure 5 to the memo of the L.P.A.) as well as the order passed by Dy. Commissioner, Khunti vide order dated 24th January, 2013 in Appeal No. 50R-15/2008-09 (Annexure 6 to the memo of this L.P.A.) also deserves to be quashed and set aside.;