M.Y. Eqbal, J. - (1.) IN this appeal, a very interesting question, which needs consideration by this Court, is as to whether the Deputy Commissioner or any of the officer exercising power conferred by Section 71 -A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 can issue interim order of injunction.
(2.) THE facts of the instant case lie in a narrow compass: The appellants, who are members of Scheduled Tribes, filed an application under Section 71 -A of the C.N.T. Act (in short 'the Act ') for restoration of land on the allegation that they were fraudulently dispossessed by the private respondents. The said application was registered as S.L.R. Case No. 120/06 -07. The Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, issued show cause notices to the private respondents. In the meantime, the Special Officer directed the respondents to stop construction work on the land in question. The respondents challenged the said order by filing a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 5434 of 2007, whereby the respondents were directed to stop construction over the land in question. The respondents took the stand that similar applications were filed by the appellants earlier on the same ground and those restoration applications were dismissed and, therefore, fresh restoration proceeding is barred by res judicata. It was further contended by the respondents that the Scheduled Area Regulation Officer has no jurisdiction or power to issue orders of injunction or to direct the Officer Incharge to restrain the respondents from making construction. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, held that so far the question as to whether fresh proceeding is barred by res judicata on the ground of similar proceedings having been dismissed is to be decided by the Special Officer and the respondents could have raised all the question and could have requested for preliminary hearing. However, so far the power of Special Officer directing the Officer Incharge to stop construction is concerned, the learned Single Judge held that the said order is illegal and without jurisdiction for the reason that the appellants failed to place any provision of law which empowers the Special Officer to pass such orders. The appellants, therefore, only challenged that part of the order whereby the learned Single Judge declared the interim order passed by the Special Officer as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction.
(3.) WE have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.;