- (1.) HEARD the counsel for the petitioners and the State. All these three writ petitions are directed against a common order dated 28.8.1996 passed by the appellate authority, namely the respondent no. 2, in three separate appeals whereby the order dated 10.6.1994 passed by the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi, was set aside and also against a common order dated 3.7.2002, passed in the three separate revision applications, by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, confirming the order of the appellate authority.
(2.) FACTS and the disputes involved in all these writ petitions are identical and relate to a land bearing plot no. 1080, Khata No.112, area 35 decimals, of village Pandra, district Ranchi, which was originally recorded as a raiyati land in the name of one Soma Oraon, in the records of right. The facts in common of the petitioners' case are as follows: (i) Much prior to the coming into force of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act ( Amendment Act 1947), the disputed land was acquired by Sukhram Prasad, father -in -law of petitioner Kanti Devi, in the year 1947 by way of purchase from the original recorded raiyat Soma Oraon for a consideration of Rs. 850/ - and after the purchase, he came in possession thereof and continued to remain in peaceful occupation and possession of the same. (ii) such acquisition and possession of the land by Sukhram Prasad was confirmed in Title Suit no. 30 of 1965 and Title Suit No. 511 of 1967 filed by Sukhram Prasad, and the suit was decreed in favour of Sukhram Prasad by a compromise decree dated 26.3.1965. (iii) Later, Soma Oraon, filed an application under section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act for restoration of his land vide Misc. Case No. 49 of 1975. The application was dismissed by order dated 15.5.1978 passed by the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, on the ground that the CNT Act was not applicable to the lands falling within Municipal Area. No appeal was preferred by the claimant against the order of the Special Officer in SAR No. 49 of 1975. (iv) Much later, in the year 1990, one Jaipal Oraon, son of the original recorded tenant Soma Oraon, filed a fresh application No. SAR No. 98 of 1990 against Sukhram Prasad under section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act for restoration of the same land. In this application, the petitioners in WP[C] no. 1123 of 2003, and petitioners in WP[C] no. 5605 of 2003 were also impleaded as opposite parties. The petitioners Kanti Devi had also got herself impleaded as an opposite party in the aforesaid restoration proceeding on the ground that she had acquired a valid right, title and interest over 11 decimals of disputed land by virtue of sale deed executed in her favour in the year 27.7.1991 by Sukhram Prasad. (v) One Kauleshwar Pd Choudhary who was one of the opposite parties in the restoration case, got his case separated from the others on 1.7.1993. The Special Officer by order dated 13/9/1993 while disposing of the restoration application concerning the said Kauleshwar Prasad Choudhary, had ordered him to pay a sum of Rs. 21,900/ - to the applicant as compensation, which having been paid by him and accepted by the applicant Soma Oraon, his case was closed. (vi) The case in respect of the other remaining opposite parties including the present petitioners, was also disposed of by the Special Officer by directing them to pay compensation of specified amounts to the applicant. The compensation amount paid by the petitioners was accepted by the applicant Jaipal Oraon and his father Soma Oraon. However, Ghurta Oraon, another son of Soma Oraon who was also impleaded as a co - applicant in the proceedings, did not accept the amount and challenged the order passed by Special Officer in SAR No. 98 of 1990 in appeal.
(3.) BY the impugned appellate order dated 28.8.1996 the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, set aside the order of Special Officer as passed in SAR No. 98 of 1990 and directed the respondents in the appeal, namely the present petitioners, to restore the land to the originally recorded tenant, namely, Soma Oraon. Being aggrieved with the order of the appellate authority, the petitioners filed separate revision applications before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Ranchi. By the impugned order dated 3.7.2002, the Revisional authority dismissed the revision applications of the petitioners.;