- (1.) THE petitioner in this writ application has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 1.3.2000 (Annexure -1) passed in S.A.R. Case No. 37 of 1998 -99 whereby the disputed lands were restored in favour of the respondent No. 5 and also for quashing the order dated 13.2.2002 (Annexure -2) passed by the Additional Collector, Gumla in S.A.R. Appeal No. 3 of 2000 and order dated 25.6.2002 (Annexure -3) passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division. Ranchi in S.A.R. Revision No. 37 of 2002 whereby the appeals filed by the petitioner against the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, was dismissed.
(2.) THE petitioner and the respondent NO.5 belong to the Oraon community of the scheduled tribes. The disputed lands under Khata Nos. 46 and 47 bearing different plot numbers and measuring a total area of 10.96 acres situated in village Kanji within P.S. Duri, district Gumla, was originally recorded in the C.S. Khatiyan in the name of one Manua Oraon. According to the genealogical table relied upon by the petitioner, Manua Oraon died leaving behind two sons namely Tulu Oraon and Bhanda Oraon, Tulu Oraon had a SOn namely Phakir Oraon and a grandson Joseph Oraon. Bhanda Oraon had a son namely Pilu Oraon and grandson lmil Oraon. On the death of Manua Oraon and his son Tulu Oraon, the lands were recorded in Ihe R.S. Khatiyan in the name of Phakir Oraon son of Tulu Oraon. The property eventually devolved upon Phakir Oraon's son Joseph Oraon who had no son and who died leaving behind him his widow Sohani Urain and a daughter Margret Urain who was married even during the lifetime of her father and has a son namely Arvind Vijay Tappa. After the death of Joseph Oraon, the name of his widow Sohani Urain was entered in the Register II of the revenue records and rents receipts used to be granted to her by the Anchal Adhikari. By a registered deed of gift dated 3.1.1974, Soh ani Urain gifted the lands to her grandson Arvind Vijay Tappa. The petitioner has staked his claim of right in the disputed lands on the ground that since Joseph Oraon did not have any son, his widow and married daughter could not be inherited any right by way of succession over the lands since the customary rites in their community prohibits such inheritance. Under such circumstances, the lands which belonged to Joseph Oraon. had reverted to the petitioner since he being the grandson of Bandha Oraon and great grandson of Manua Oraon, was the agnate of deceased Joseph Oraon. On the basis of such claim, the petitioner filed a title Suit No. 25 of 1994 in the court of the Munsif, Gumla praying for a decree for declaration of his right and title over the disputed lands and also for declaring the gift deed executed by Soh ani Urain as null and void. The suit was decreed In favour of the petitioner, though ex -parte. declaring the petitioner's right and title over the disputed lands and also declaring the gift deed as null and void. The donee Arvind Vijay Toppo, who was one of the defendants in the said suit, did not prefer any appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif, Gumla in the aforesaid title suit No. 25 of 1994. In support of his claim of right over the land, the petitioner had relied upon two separate C.S. Khatiyans, one pertaining to Khata No. 20 of village Kanji which showed that the father of the recorded tenant Phakir Oraon namely Tulu Oraon was the son of the common ancestor Manua Oraon. The other C.S. Khatiyan of Khata No. 22 of village Harradipa showed that the father of Bhandha Oraon was Manua Oraon. Prior to the institution of the title suit No. 25 of 1994, a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was initiated in which the petitioner was one of the parties while Arvind Vijay Toppo and the respondent No. 5 were the members of the second party. The petitioner's contention is that though he was made a party in the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C., but the respondent NO.5 did not file his written statements nor did he advance any sort of claim over the disputed lands and therefore, In the title suit, the respondent No. 5 was not made a party. However, much later, the respondent No. 5 filed a case for restor3tion of the disputed lands In his favour. vide S.A.R. Case No. 37 of 1998 -99 and another case vide S.A.R. Case No. 24 of 1999~2000 before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Gumla. The petitioner had filed his objections in both the cases, but by the impugned order (Annexure -1) the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Gumla dismissed the objection of the petitioner and ordered for restoration of the possession of the land in favour of the respondent No.5. The appeals preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authorities were also dismissed by the impugned orders (Annexure -2 and Annexure -3).
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.5, denying and disputing the entire claim of the petitioner, including the genealogy, as stated by the petitioner. While admitting the fact that the land under Khata Nos. 46 and 47 of Mauza Kanji, P.S. Duri, District Gumla was recorded in the Revisional Survey operation in the name of Phakir Oraon, son of Tulu Oraon, the respondent No.5 has claimed that Tulu Oraon was the only son of Manua Oraon. The lands which Tulu Oraon inherited from his father Manua Oraon, had devolved upon his son Phaklr Oraon who was the recorded tenant and on the death of Phakir Oraon it had devolved upon his son Joseph Oraon. Though, Joseph Oraon did not have a son but his daughter Margret Urain was married even during the lifetime of Joseph Oraon and her husband Alphons Oraon was accepted as a 'Ghar Dam ad' in the family and Arvind Vijay Toppo is the son of Margret Urain. The contention of the respondent No. 5 is that the petitioner has no relation or concern whatsoever with the Khatiyani Raiyats as because the petitioner is an inhabitant of a different village altogether i.e. village Harradipa within P.S. Chainpur in the district of Gumla and this fact was confirmed even by the Circle Officer, Dumri (Annexure -1) in his inquiry report. The further contention of the respondent No.5 is that though the C.S. Khata No. 22 pertaining to the lands within Mauza Harradipa, P.S. Chainpur district Gumla records the name of Bonda Bondu Oraon son of Manua Oraon and in the corresponding R.S. Khata No. 34 of the same village, the name of the petitioner's father Astanis Oraon son of Pillu Oraon has been recorded but the same has no concern whatsoever with the record of rights pertaining to the disputed lands of Mauza Kanji, P.S. Dumri which stands recorded exclusively in the name of Tulu Oraon, grandfather of Joseph Oraon and later In the name of Phakir Oraon father of Joseph Oraon. The further contention of the respondent No. 5 is that since the husband of Margret Urain was accepted in the house of her father as a 'Ghar Damad', after performing all the customary rites, the properties which. earlier belonged to Joseph Oraon had devolved upon Margret Urain's husband Alphons Oraon. On the death of Alphons Oraon in a road accident in 1968, Sohani Urain, widow of Joheph Oraon, after obtaining permission from the competent authority, executed a registered deed of gift of the entire lands measuring 21.90 acres under Khata No. 46 and 47 of Mauza Kanji in favour of her grandson Arvind Vijay Toppo in the year 1974. The lands were accordingly mutated in the name of Arvind Vijay Toppo and he used to pay rents to the State. Later in the year 1985, Arvind Vijay Toppo sold 10.96 acres of lands after obtaining permission from the competent authorities, to the respondent No.5. The further contention of the respondent No. 5 is that the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. vide Miscellaneous Case No. 552 of 1992, was decided in favour of Arvind Vijay Toppo. The petitioner, knowing fully well that the disputed lands stood transferred by way of registered sale deed executed by Arvind Vijay Toppo in favour of respondent No. 5, had intentionally omitted to implead the respondent No. 5 in the title of eviction suit No. 25 of 1994. The suit was decreed ex -parte without the knowledge of the respondent No. 5 and therefore, ex -parte judgment and decree passed in the said suit is not binding upon the respondent No.5 and even otherwise, since the decree was obtained on the basis of a false genealogy, such decree is invalid. It is further pleaded that since earlier the petitioner had obtained possession of the disputed land by force, the respondent No.5 filed a case before the D.C.L.R., Gumla for restoration of the lands in his favour vide S.A.R. Case No. 37 of 1998 -99 and vide order dated 1.3.2000 (Annexure -1), the lands were restored in favour of the respondent NO.5. The respondent No. 5 has supported the impugned orders as passed by the D.C.L.R., Gumla and the orders passed by the appellate authorities in his favour.;