- (1.) PETITIONER , in this writ application has prayed for a direction commanding upon the Respondents particularly the Respondent no. 2 to dispose of the S.A.R. Appeal No. 47 R -15/2007 -08, preferred by the petitioner within a specified time and also for restraining the Respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the lands in question during the pendency of the appeal.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondent -State. It appears from the statements of the petitioner that earlier a proceeding for restoration of the disputed lands under the provisions of Section 71 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act filed by the father of the Respondent no. 4 and the matter was heard and disposed of by the concerned authorities and against the order of disposal by way of rejection of the application, the Respondent no. 4 did not prefer any appeal. Rather, it was the villagers who chose to file and prefer an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and since the appeal was not being disposed of the petitioner was sought to be dispossessed from his land. The petitioner approached this Court vide W.P.(C) No. 3380 of 2006 under which the petitioner has not only challenged the maintainability of the appeal preferred by the villagers but had also sought for due protection from being forcibly dispossessed. This Court vide order dated 31.7.2008 had directed the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district to dispose of the appeal, which was pending before him vide SAR. Appeal No.6 R -15/2005 -06 within a period of four months from the date of the order after considering the objections, if any raised by the parties. Learned counsel informs that in spite of the above order, the appeal has not be disposed of as yet by the appellate authorities. On the other hand, a fresh proceeding was initiated by the Respondent no. 4 all over again under the provisions of Section 71 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, which was not only entertained but the application was also allowed. Against the said order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal vide SAR. Appeal No. 47 R -15/ 2007 -08. The aforementioned appeal is fixed for hearing on 31st December, 2008. However, in the meantime, the petitioner is apprehending his forcible dispossession in pursuance of the order passed in the subsequent restoration case although the petitioner's appeal is still pending disposal, since there is no order of stay from the appellate authorities.
(3.) LEARNED counsel has therefore, prayed that the appellate authority be directed to dispose of the pending appeals within a reasonable period and also to give due protection from being forcibly dispossessed from the land. ;