Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. R.K. Gupta, counsel appears for the petitioners, Mr. R.K. Mahatha, counsel for the respondent no. 5 and Mr. Ravi Kumar, J.C. to S.C. II, counsel for the respondent-State.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioners challenging the following orders:- a) Revisional order dated 26.02.2001 (Annexure-6) passed by the respondent no. 2 in Lohardaga S.A.R. Revision No. 122/92, b) Appellate order dated 10.04.1992 (Annexure-5) passed by the respondent no. 3 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 16R 15/ 90-91 and c) order dated 13.02.1991 (Annexure-4) passed by the respondent no. 4 in S.A.R. case No. 19/88-89.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioners submits that the S.A.R. No. 19/88-89 was filed by the petitioner (respondent no. 5 herein) for restoration of land under section 71 A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. He further submits that application for restoration was allowed and a compensation of Rs. 3,040/- was fixed by the court vide order dated 13.02.1991 directing the respondent no. 5 to make payment to present petitioner of this case. Against the order dated 13.02.1991 passed in S.A.R. Case No. 19/88-89 the respondent no. 5 filed an appeal before the appellant authority which was numbered as S.A.R. appeal no. 16 R 15/ 90-91. The grievance of the respondent no. 5 before the appellate court was that the amount of compensation of Rs. 3040/- was not legally payable by the respondent no. 5 to the petitioner. The appellate court allowed the S.A.R. appeal filed by the respondent no. 5 and direction for payment of compensation of Rs. 3040/- was set aside by the appellate court. Against this order the writ petitioner filed Lohardaga S.A.R. Revision No. 122/92 which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 26.02.2001.;