- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 1.8.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition was dismissed observing therein that the petitioner/appellant herein had a remedy of appeal under the Act before the Commissioner, which he failed to avail and straightway filed a writ petition before the High Court under Article 226. The learned Single Judge, therefore, was pleased to hold that the dispute raised by the petitioner can be adequately addressed to the appellate authority and there was no reason to issue any direction in regard to the dispute raised by the petitioner.
(2.) COUNSEL for the appellant submitted that the application filed by the respondent for restoration of the land bearing Land Restoration Case No. 1/07 -08 -08 in a proceeding under Section 71 -A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, should not have been allowed to initiate at all as an earlier proceeding had been initiated but the same was rejected and the respondent had filed a title suit wherein the petitioner/appellant herein was a party, in which certain observations were made in favour of the appellant herein and therefore, a fresh proceeding under the same provision ought We had put this question to the counsel for the respondent who had ex - plained that in the first place, the appellant had not stated all these facts before the Special Officer, the original court, where the land restoration case had been filed and even if he had done so, he had a remedy before the Commissioner to urge all these points.
(3.) WE find substance in the explanation offered by the counsel for the respondents as in the first place it was the duty of the appellant to bring all the relevant facts to the notice of the Special Officer, which he had failed to do. But even if he had done so, it was rejected and the same ought to have been raised by filing an appeal before the Commissioner which he had not availed. Hence, we dismiss this appeal with liberty to the appellant to file an appeal before the Commissioner. In the interest of equity, we observe that if the appellant prefers an appeal before the Commissioner, the Commissioner would decide the appeal on merit and would not dismiss the same on the ground of limitation.;