ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY,J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following relief:- a) For quashing the order dated 16.08.2005 as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition passed by the Court of Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Ranchi S.A.R. Revision No. 045 of 2004. b) For quashing the order dated 14.2.2005 as contained in Annexure-4 passed by the Court of Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Ranchi S.A.R. Revision No. 046 of 2004. c) For quashing the order dated 26.03.2004 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition passed by the Court of Additional Collector, Ranchi in S.A.R. Appeal No. 193 R15/2003-04. d) For quashing the order dated 29.10.2004 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition issued by the Court of Additional Collector to Circle Officer, Town Anchal, whereby the delivery of possession in R.S. Plot No. 2661 under Khata No. 100 measuring an area of 20 decimals belonging to the petitioner has been affected instead of R.S. Plot No. 2664 which was the subject matter of restoration as claimed by the private respondents.
(2.) The fact of the case as submitted by the counsel for the writ petitioners and is apparent from the impugned order is as follows:- a. An application for restoration of land being S.A.R. Case No.10 of 2001 was filed by the Dilip Munda (respondent No.3 herein) for restoration of land in Mauza Bargain, khata No.100 Plot No.2661 total area of 79 decimal and Plot No.2664 area 20 decimal against the two persons namely Balram Bhagat and Birtu Sahu. The Respondent No.3 claimed that he has been dispossessed and the petitioner has constructed pucca house in the said property. So far as the property in possession of Balram Bhagat is concerned that related to 8 and a half decimals of Plot No.2661 and the same was purchased by him after taking due permission by Permission Case No.91 R 8-2/87-88 and it was purchased by Registered Deed No. 11454 dated 11.5.92. Thereafter, he had got his name mutated. b. So far as Birtu Sahu (petitioner in this writ petition) is concerned he claimed 20 decimals of land in Plot No. 2661 out of total area of 59 decimals vide two Hukumnamas dated 10.05.1940 (10 decimals) and 10.5.1959 (10 decimals) and claimed that the raiyat of the property had issued those Hukumnamas in the name of Birtu Sahu. A point regarding the matter being time barred was raised and it was also mentioned that he had constructed house on the property as back as in the year 1969 and claimed adverse possession over the property. c. The S.A.R. Officer, rejected the case of the applicant Dilip Munda, so far as his case against Balram Bhagat is concerned but however so far as the petitioner is concerned the S.A.R. Officer passed an order of compensation for an amount of Rs.18,000/- to be paid by the petitioner. d. Against this order the respondent No. 3 filed an appeal being S.A.R. appeal No. 193 R 15 of 2003 and the order of compensation was set-aside and an order of restoration was passed. However, in the order by the appellate authority Plot No.2664 was mentioned. e. Against this order, the writ petitioner filed his revision application before the revisional authority which was numbered as Ranchi S.A.R. Revision No.45 of 2004 which was dismissed vide order dated 14.02.2005 by holding that the petitioner was claiming the property on the basis of settlement by Sada hukumnamas, which has got no legal sanctity. f. In the meantime, the petitioner filed a petition before the Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi mentioning therein that as per the appellate court's order the Plot number was 2664 and accordingly the property which was to be restored was relating to Plot No.2664 and that of Plot No.2661. g. In such circumstances, realizing that there was an error in the appellate order by mentioning the Plot number as 2664 instead of Plot No. 2661 another revision petition was filed before the revisional authority being S.A.R. Revision No.46 of 2005 by the respondent No.3 herein wherein the said authority rectified the Plot No. as 2661 instead of Plot No.2664. h. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that the property which was restored as is apparent from the order of the appellate authority was Plot No.2664 and Plot No.2661 and accordingly the order passed in S.A.R. Revision No.46 of 2005 is sustainable in the eyes of law. i. He further relies upon the judgment passed by this court in judgment reported in 1968 PLJR 3 'Full Bench' and submitted that the unregistered hukumnama can be used for collateral purposes and accordingly the order passed in S.A.R. Revision No.45 of 2004 is in accordance with law.
(3.) Counsel for the private respondent on the other hand submits that the impugned order has been rightly passed by revisional authority in S.A.R Revision Case No.45 of 2005 read with S.A.R Revision Case No. 46 of 2005. Counsel for the respondent also submits that the memorandum of revision which was filed by the writ petitioner herein being S.A.R. Revision No.45 of 2004 is a part of the writ record contained in Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit filed by the private respondent and from the perusal of the said revision petition, it is apparent that the writ petitioner was aggrieved and concerned with the order passed in connection with 20 decimals of land in Plot No.2661 and Plot No.2664. He has referred to the various paragraphs of the memorandum of revision. He submits that the petitioner cannot be permitted to take advantage of a typographical error which cropped in the appellate order wherein Plot No. 2664 was mentioned instead of 2661 although the entire case before the appellate authority related to Plot No.2661 only. Counsel for the respondent also submits that the holding number on the property was created only in the year 1975 and accordingly the contention of the petitioner that the structure was existing prior to 1969 has no basis. He further submits that the Sada hukumnama which has been relied upon by the petitioner is followed by issuance of rent receipt and accordingly has no value in the eyes of law. He submits that the claim of the writ petitioner that he is in possession of the property pursuant to Sada hukumnama has been rightly disbelieved by the authorities below. He further submits that a raiyat of the property otherwise also does have any power to execute Hukumnama in favour of any person. The claim of the petitioner is based on sada hukumnama excuted by the raiyat of the property.;