Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D.K. Prasad, counsel assisted by Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak counsels appearing for the respondent nos. 5 to 8 and Mr. A.K. Thakur, J.C. to S.C.(L&C) appearing for the respondent-State.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the following orders: a) Oder dated 23.06.2005 passed by Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Khunti (respondent no. 4) in SAR case no. 60/03-04; b) Order dated 22.12.2006 passed by Additional Collector, Ranchi respondent no. 3 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 48R15/05-06 and the c) Order dated 24.04.2007 passed by The Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi (respondent no. 2) in S.A.R. Revision No. 32/2007.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits as follows: a) The property involved in this case is a piece of land being R.S. Plot No. 86 area 2.97 acres under Khata No. 49 of Village-Kamanta, which is recorded in survey record of right in the name of ancestor of the petitioner. b) After the death of the ancestor of the petitioner, the rent of the property is being paid by the petitioner to the State, c) The petitioner filed an application u/s 71(A) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 against respondent nos. 5 to 8 in the court of Special Officer, Ranchi which was registered as S.A.R. Case No. 60/03-04. Counsel for the petitioner submits that although the application for restoration has not been annexed by the writ petitioner but the same is a part of the counter-affidavit filed by the private respondent which is contained in Annexure-H to the counter-affidavit. d) A report was called for from the Anchal Adhikari by the authority. On the basis of the report, the petitioner submits that it is clearly mentioned in the report that only over 0.03 acres of land a house has been constructed and the report shows that Register-II is running in the name of ancestors of the petitioner and he has paid rent up to 2004-05. A copy of the report of the Circle Officer is annexed at Annexure-I, to the writ petition. e) However, vide order dated 23.06.2005 the said application for restoration of land was rejected which is contained in Annexure-II to the writ petition. He submits that while rejecting the application for restoration, the original court relied upon the claim of surrender by the respondent nos. 5 to 8 by the original raiyat to the then Zamindar and subsequent settlement through sada hukumnama issued in the year 1943. He further submits that the original court has held that the application filed by the petitioner, for restoration, is time barred under the provisions under sections 71(A) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. He submits that there is no document on record to show date of surrender as claimed by the private respondents herein and the sada hukumnama which is on record being unregistered document cannot be relied upon by the respondent nos. 5 to 8. f) Against this order dated 23.06.2005, the writ petitioner filed appeal being S.A.R. Appeal No. 48R15/05-06 before Additional Collector who also rejected the appeal without properly appreciating the fact and law. Against this, S.A.R. Revision Case No. 32/2007 was filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner which was again rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the application filed by the petitioner was time barred. g) learned counsel submits that the learned courts below have not appreciated the law properly in as much as the claim of the private respondent that they are in possession of the property by virtue of deed of surrender and subsequent Sada hukunama said to have been issued in 1943 cannot be recognized, firstly on the ground that deed of surrender is not a part of record and secondly sada hukumnana being an unregistered document cannot be taken into account. He has relied upon the judgment reported in (2001) 1 JLJR 102.;