- (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order dated 7.3.89 (Annexure -3) passed by the land Reforms Deputy Commissioner (Respondent No. 4) in S.A.R. case No. 19 of 1988/89 by which the order of restoration has been passed in respect of the lands under khata No. 15, Plot No. 127, Thana No. 220 of Mauza Mahali Marup comprising an area of 0.52 acres in exercise of power under section 71/A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent Nos. 6 to 14 and for quashing the order dated 30.11.1991 (Annexure -5) passed by the Appellate Authority, the Deputy Commissioner (Respondent No. 3) in S.A.R. appeal No. 6 of 1989 -90 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected and for quashing the order dated 9.2.99 (Annexure -6) passed by the Commissioner (respondent No. 2) in Singhbhum Revenue Revision No. 15/92 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order passed by respondent No. 3 and 4 has been confirmed.
(2.) THE facts in brief are set out as under: - According to the counsel for the petitioner the lands under Khata No. 15, Plot No. 127, Thana No. 220 of Mauza Mahali Marup comprising an area of 0.52 acres was purchased by the petitioner by oral settlement from the father of respondent No. 6 in the year 1950. It is further submitted that he has constructed a house and is residing with the family members. Saraikella Estate merged into State of Bihar in 1951 and thereafter C.N.T. Act became applicable. On coming to know that the land was recorded in the name of Kuar Ho and Gulab Ho in the recent survey operation the petitioner filed a Title Suit No. 79 of 1963 before the court of Munsif, Saraikella, against the recorded tenants which was decreed on 10.9.63 by way of a compromise petition. Pursuant to the compromise decree the petitioner got the land in question mutated in his favour and is paying the rent regularly. In 1988 a petition was filed by Circle Officer, respondent No. 5, Saraikella who was exercising the power of Deputy Commissioner for restoration of the land under section 71A of the C.N.T. Act on the basis of the entry made in revenue record. Accordingly S.A.R. case No. 19 of 1988 -89 was registered in the name of Gulab Ho and Kuar Ho, though they were dead at that time and the petitioner on receipt of the notice filed a show -cause. Respondent No. 4 in S.A.R. Case No. 19 of 1988 -89 passed the order directing the petitioner to give the vacant position of the land vide its order dated 7.3.89. The petitioner being constrained filed S.A.R. Appeal No. 6/89 challenging the order dated 7.3.89 before Respondent No. 3 who was pleased to dismiss the same vide its order dated 30.11.91. The petitioner thereafter filed Revision No. 15/92 and the Revisional Court also confirmed the order passed by the court below and dismissed the Revision vide its impugned order dated 9.2.1999 which is sought to be challenged in the present writ petition. The main contention raised by the Shri Amar Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that a proceeding under section 71 A of the C.N.T. Act cannot be initiated in the name of a person who has already died. He has further contended that the C.N.T. Act was not applicable in Saraikella in the year 1950 since the merger took place in 1951 and thus Section 71 A of the C.N.T. could not have been invoked. He has also submitted that in the Title Suit filed by the petitioner a compromise decree was passed in the year 1963 itself and thus the order of restoration of the land in question under the provision of Section 71 A of the C.N.T. Act in favour of persons who have admittedly died was on the face of it void and illegal.
(3.) HE has further submitted that Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 had no power or jurisdiction to interfere with the Title and possession of the petitioner which has been declared by a competent Civil Court in a regular suit. It has also been contended that the permission of the Deputy Commissioner was not required before 1951 in respect of the land in question since Saraikella Estate merged in 1951 only and the petitioner was in possession since 1950.;