AJIT KUMAR SINHA, J. - (1.) IN the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction for quashing the order dated 18.5.1999 passed by respondent No. 2, Commissioner, South Chhota Nagpur Division, in S.A.R. Revision No. 120/1991, allowing the said revision and setting aside the orders of land restoration passed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 respectively in favour of the petitioner in the purported exercise of his revisional powers unde' Section 217 of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act as the Respondent No. 2 has completely misdirected himself in law by misconstruing the limitation period as provided under Section 48 (4) of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act and in not applying the limitation of 30 years as applicable in cases of land restoration under Section 71 -A of the Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act.
(2.) THE facts, In brief, are set out as under: State Of Jharkhand Through Director General Of Police Versus Thakur Ajit Kumar The petitioner had preferred an application under Section 71 -A of the C.N.T. Act for restoration of land of 45 decimals under R.S. Plot No. 319, Khata No. 179 at village Madhukam, P.S. Sukhdeo Nagar, district Ranchi and the same was registered as S.A.R. Case No. 169 of 1993 -94. The learned Special Officer, Ranchi, respondent No. 4 herein, allowed the petition for restoration vide its order dated 13.12.1996 and S.A.R. appeal No. 570 R 15/97 was preferred under the provisions of Section 48(4) of C.N.T. Act. It was also dismissed on 15.7.1998. Thereafter S.A.R. Revision No. 120 of 1998 was filed before the Commissioner who Is respondent No. 2 herein, and vide Its Impugned order dated 18.5.1999 he was pleased to allow the revision reversing the order of the authorities below and the same is sought to be challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 revisional authority has clearly erred and misdirected itself while interpreting the provisions of Section 48(4) of the C.N.T. Act in passing the impugned order which relates to restriction on the transfer of Bhuinhari land. The second contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the exercise of jurisdiction by respondent No. 2 without applying the dead line of 30 years of amended rule of limitation as provided by the Amending Act No. l of 1986, which came in to effect from 01.9.1986 by terms whereof Bhuinanhari lands were also brought within the sweep of Section 71 -A of the C.N.T. Act was illegal. In the instant case the restoration application was filed in the year 1993 i.e. much before 30 years. It has also been contended that respondent No. 2, revisional authority himself after holding that the Sada Humumnama had been concocted in the year 1974 by Abdul Rahman for transferring the land in question to one Ram Ranam Sharma, the vendor of private respondent No. 5 to 14 in the year 1974 -75 -76 and 1991 ought to have further held that the transfer in favour of Ram Ranam Sharma as also in favour of private respondent was of no consequence and it has net conferred any title on the private respondent Nos. 5 to 14. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that transfer in favour of private respondent Nos.5 to 14 was not made by any member of Bhuinanhari family but admittedly by Abdul Rahman and Ram Ranam Sharma who were not member of the Bhuinanhari family and Sub Section 3 of Section 48 clearly provides that such a transfer shall not be valid. It has also been submitted that the petitioner being Oraon is a member of scheduled tribe and is entitled to the protection and enforcement of its right relating to the property as secured under Section 300 -A of the Constitution of India and though being agnate relation of the recorded tenant had accordingly filed the application under Section 71 -A of the C.N.T. Act claiming restoration of the land in question.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondents in reply submits that the land being Bakast Bhuinharl no petition for restoration would lie after the expiry of 12 years from the date of transfer or dispossession and thus the claim of the petitioner had already extinguished by limitation and lapse of time. It has also been contended that the land In question was settled in Chhaparbandi right in the year 1948 by the recorded tenants Chotka Mahadeo Oraon in favour of one Abdul Rahman and said Abdul Rahman subsequently transferred the land in question by registered document to Ram Raham Sharma on 3.4.1974 and said Ram Ranam Sharma in his turn has transferred portions of the land in question to the present respondents by means of registered document. It has also been submitted that building has been constructed long before the enforcement of Scheduled Area Regulation Act, 1969 and the limitation up to 12 years, as provided in Section 48(4) of the C.N.T. Act prior to coming into force of Amending Act, 1986 was applicable in the present case. It has also been contended that respondent No. 5 to 14 along with their vendor have remained In possession for a period of more than 12 years when the Amending Act, 1986 came into force and therefore they have acquired title by adverse possession.;