D.N. PATEL, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original writ petitioner challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 1319 of 1999(R) dated 28th May, 1999 whereby, the petition preferred by these appellants was dismissed and the earlier orders passed by the three Revenue Authorities under the Revenue Laws have been upheld as a valid.
(2.) FACTUAL MATRIX These appellants (original petitioners) are claiming to be the owner of the land bearing Khata No. 15, Plot No. 127, Thana No. 220 of Mauza Mahali Murup, District Saraikela, Kharsawan admeasuring 0.52 acres of land, on the basis of oral transfer of land which was sold orally for Rs. 301 in the year 1950, by the father of the Respondent Nos. 6 to 15. On the basis of this oral transfer of land in the year 1950, nothing was done for more than a decade. No steps were initiated by the original purchasers/appellants for getting the aforesaid land mutated in their favour. Title Suit No. 79 of 1963 was instituted by these appellants and a compromise decree was taken from the concerned trial Court dated 10th September, 1963 and by virtue of this compromise decree the name was mutated in the revenue entries in favour of these appellants. Thus, on the basis of the oral sale of land, nothing was done from 1950 and what could not have been done directly, has been done indirectly i.e. mutation entered in favour of these appellants. Circle Officer of the concerned area initiated proceedings which is known as S.A.R. case no. 19 of 198889 and ultimately vide order dated 7th March, 1989, the possession was restored in favour of the respondent Nos. 6 to 15, because there cannot be an oral transfer of landed property and that too in breach of several other provisions of the Act viz. Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. These desperate appellants preferred S.A.R. Appeal before Deputy Commissioner being S.A.R. Appeal No. 6 of 198990 which was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 30th November, 1991. Being aggrieved by this appellate authorities' order, under revenue laws, Revision Application No. 15/1992 was preferred by these appellants which was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 9th February, 1999. Against this concurrent finding of facts, writ petition was preferred by these appellants being C.W.J.C. No. 1319 of 1999(R) which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 28th May, 2009 and, hence, the original petitioners have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
(3.) Arguments Canvassed by the Counsel for the Appellant(s). Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 is not applicable to the land situated in Saraikela because it was merged later on in 1951. It is further contended by counsel for the appellants that a compromise decree was passed by the concerned trial Court in Title Suit No. 79 of 1963 dated 10th September, 1963. Unless this decree is set aside, the possession ought to have been maintained with these appellants. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that there is an adverse possession in favour of these appellants. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. It is further contended by counsel for the appellants that this land is in their possession since 1950 and the house has also been constructed upon the land in question and after several years these appellants cannot be dispossessed. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may kindly be allowed by quashing the order passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 1319 of 1999(R) dated 28th May, 1999. Counsel for the appellants further submitted that S.A.R. case was initiated after 30 years which is against the rule of law. ;