D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) THE petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 7.9.1996, passed by the Additional Collector, Palamau (respondent No. 2) in Misc. Case No. 27 of 1995 -96, whereby the Additional Collector has passed the impugned order canceling the Jamabandi earlier created in favour of the petitioners. Prayer has also been made for quashing the order dated 4.3.1997 passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby the petitioners prayer for review of the earlier order dated 7.9.1996 was rejected.
(2.) THE petitioners have asserted their claim over the disputed lands on the basis of the facts stated as under: That the petitioners are the occupancy Raiyats amongst others in respect of the lands under Khata No. 28, Plot No. 691 area 1.30 acres, Plot No. 871 area 27 decimals with village Hisra Pokhraha. Although the aforesaid land originally belonged to the ex - landlord of the village, namely Kanhaiya Dayal Singh, which was later recorded in the name of one Niranjan Dusadh in the cadastral survey records of rights finally framed and published in the year 1919. The ex -landlord filed Title Suit No. 736 of 1919 against the said Niranjan Dusadh and 25 other Raiyats for correction of the entries by removing the name of the defendants, whose names have been wrongly entered in the records of rights and also for a declaration that the lands including the disputed lands are Bakast land of the landlords. The Title Suit No. 736 of 1919 was decreed in favour of the ex -landlord vide Decree dated 12.2.1920 (Annexure -1). In the Execution proceedings vide Execution Case No. 215 of 1920, the delivery of possession of the disputed lands including the suit lands was effected in favour of the landlord/decree holder. The said Estate of the ex -landlord Kanhaiya Dayal Singh was under the management of the Manager, Ward and Encumbered Estate in the year 1935. The Manager settled the land in Plot No. 871 Khata No. 28, area measuring 1.30 acres in favour of one Feku Kurmi in the year 1937 and had put the settlee in possession of the aforesaid lands. Feku Kurmi enjoyed the peaceful possession and occupation of the lands by paying rent without any obstruction or objection from Niranjan Dusadh or his successors. Feku Kurmi had died leaving behind his two sons namely, Lakhan Choud -hary and Bishun Choudhary. After inheriting their fathers properties, both Lakhan Choudhary and Bishun Choudhary had transferred the land of Plot No. 871 area measuring 1.30 acres in favour of one Kamalpurti Devi by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 27.4.1953. Kamalpurti Devi continued to enjoy peaceful possession of the land purchased by her by paying rent. The transferee, Kamalpurti Devi by virtue of a registered sale -deed dated 2.11.1968 sold the lands measuring 1.30 acres in Plot No. 871 to one Sone Kumari Devi (petitioner No. 2). Eversince, after purchase of the land, the petitioner No. 2 has been coming in peaceful and cultivating possession of the land by paying rent and obtaining receipts thereof. In the new survey settlement operation, the petitioner No. 2 was found in peaceful cultivating possession of the aforesaid lands and, accordingly a preliminary survey parcha was issued in her name in respect of 1.30 acres of land in Plot No. 871. Later the aforesaid 1.30 acres of land in Plot No. 871 was acquired by the State Government for the purpose of constructing a canal and after due enquiry the amount of compensation for the acquisition of the land was paid to petitioner No. 2. It was during the aforesaid Land Acquisition proceeding that the respondent No. 4, Bipat Manjhi filed an objection. After due enquiry made by the Circle Officer and his field staff, the objection of the respondent No. 4 was rejected and the amount of compensation was paid to petitioner No. 2. Later the instance of the respondent No. 4, in a proceeding under Section 144, CrPC in the year 1983, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 659 of 1983, after considering the documents filed by the petitioners, as opposite party, the rule of restraint was vacated in favour of the petitioners and made absolute against the respondent No. 4. The other piece of land measuring 27 decimals in Plot No. 691 was settled by the ex -landlord Shankar Dayal Singh in favour of the petitioners predecessor Reghubir Tiwary. The settlee continued to remain in peaceful possession of the land and to pay rent thereof. Later in the year 1944, consequent upon a partition in the family of Raghubir Tiwary vide Partition Suit No. 1 of 1944, the 27 decimals of land in Plot No. 691 was allotted to the Takhta of Laxman Tiwary, who was the father of the petitioner No. 1. On the death of Laxman Tiwary in the year 1966, the petitioner No. 1 and the other heirs of Laxman Tiwary inherited Laxman Tiwarys properties. Later in the year 1982, following a partition in the family of the Laxman Tiwary, 27 decimals of land in Plot No. 691 was allotted to the exclusive share and Takhta of respondent No. 1. On the basis of the decree in the Partition Suit No. 79 of 1982, the name of the petitioner No. 1 was mutated in the Revenue records in respect of the 27 decimals of land in Plot No. 891 and he has been paying rent for the same. The petitioner No. 1 was also found in cultivating possession of the aforesaid land during the recent Survey Settlement Operation and in confirmation thereof a preliminary Parcha (Annexure -3) was issued in his name. Thus since, after mutation by the revenue authorities the names of the petitioners have been running continuously in the revenue records and on the basis of the same rent receipt (Annexure -4 series) were issued to them. In spite of the above stated facts, the Circle Officer Daltonganj entertained an application of the respondent No. 4 and forwarded a recommendation to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms Daltonganj for cancellation of the demand running in the name of the petitioners in respect of the suit lands. An enquiry proceeding was initiated by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms in which the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 had submitted their respective statements. The respondent No 4 claimed that he is the descendant of Niranjan Dusadh in whose name the land under Khata No. 28 total area measuring about 4.71 acres was originally recorded and out of the same area of 3.66 -6/4 acres is still running in the name of the respondent No. 4. By -order dated 24.1.1996 (Annexure -5), passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 29 of 1995 -96, the Deputy Collector. Land Reforms recorded his finding that the disputed lands have been coming in possession of the petitioners and that the respondent No. 4 has never been in possession of the same. Accordingly, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms forwarded the records of Misc. Case No. 29 of 1995 -96 to the Additional Collector, Daltonganj (respondent No. 2) with his report of enquiry containing his recommendation that the Revenue records be corrected on the basis of the peaceful possession of the lands in favour of the petitioners. Both parties appeared before the Additional Collector and produced all their respective documents in support of their claim over the disputed lands. The respondent No. 2 by his order impugned dated 7.9.1996 (Annexure -6) cancelled the long running demand of the petitioners in respect of the said lands. The petitioners thereafter filed a Review application before the respondent No. 2, against the order dated 7.9.1996. However, by order dated 4.3.1997. (Annexure -7), passed in Misc. Case No. 29 of 1995 -96, the respondent No. 2 rejected the Review application with an observation that the petitioners may file an appeal against his order. Since, at the relevant time, the Divisional Commissioner of Palamau was transferred and the Commissioner of South Chhotanagpur Division Ranchi, who was enjoying looking alter the Palamau division but was not holding Court at Palamau Division since September, 1996, the petitioners have filed to present writ application. The petitioners have assailed the impugned orders of respondent No. 2 as being wholly without jurisdiction, illegal and arbitrary. Mr. V.K. Tiwary, learned Counsel for the petitioners would argue that the petitioners have preferred the writ application before this Court against the impugned orders, since there was no efficacious, alternative remedy immediately available to them and there was absolutely no legal basis for canceling the long running demand of the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 had acted without jurisdiction in a most arbitrary and illegal manner without application of judicial mind. The impugned orders is also perverse and unsustainable in law as because, the respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to go behind the decree of the competent civil Court and decide the question of title and possession in a summary revenue proceeding. Learned counsel argues further that the petitioner had acquired occupancy rights over their holdings and in absence of an evidence or even allegation that the earlier orders of mutation in respect of the disputed lands recorded by the revenue authorities in favour of the land was obtained by fraud of misrepresentation, the respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to go behind the orders of the Revenue authorities and to differ with the recommendation of the Deputy Collector. Land Reform Palamau.
(3.) IT may be mentioned that vide order dated 12.1.1998, operation of the impugned orders contained in Annexures -6 and 7 was stayed by this Court. Though notices were served on the respondents the respondent No. 4 (Private respondent) had alone filed his counter affidavit.;