- (1.) PETITIONER in this writ application has prayed for issuance of an order for quashing the proceedings vide Misc. Case No. 1 of 2004 -05, pending before the Respondent No. 3 for execution of the order dated 07.01.1991, passed by the Respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.A.R. Appeal No. 54 of 1986 -87, whereby on dismissal of the appeal, the land in question was directed to be restored in favour of the Respondent No. 6 on his making payment of compensation of Rs. 20,000/ -to the petitioner within three months prior to the date of the order.
(2.) THE facts of the petitioners case in brief is that his father, late Bir Singh Gope had purchased the land under reference in this case, from the previous recorded tenant, namely, Birsa Purty. Besides occupying the constructed house, which was already in existence over the land, the purchaser constructed another house within the same land and has been in occupation and possession of the same and after him, his son, namely the petitioner has come in occupation of the land alongwith the house structure. In the survey settlement of 1964, the land was recorded in the name of the petitioners father and till December, 2001 the rent continued to be paid by the petitioner against the receipts issued by the Circle Officer. While the petitioner and other heirs/successors of late Bir Singh Gope were enjoying peaceful occupation and possession of the land, one of the co -owners, namely, Bipin Chandra Karji filed an application before the Circle Officer for demarcation of the land in question. The land was demarcated by the Amin of the area in presence of the entire co -villagers and no objection was raised from any corner at that time, from any co -villager, not even the Respondent No. 6. Earlier, while the petitioners father was alive, the Respondent No. 6 had filed a land Restoration case before the Sub -Divisional Officer. The case was allowed with a direction to the petitioners father to restore the land in favour of the Respondent No. 6 on payment of compensation of Rs.20,000/ -by the Respondent No. 6. Being aggrieved by the order for compensation, the Respondent No. 6 filed a T.A. Misc. Appeal No. 117 of 1975 76. For a second time also, an order was passed for restoration of the land but on deposit of Rs.20,000/ -to be made by the Respondent No. 6 within a period of two months from the date of the order. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners father had filed an appeal vide S.A.R. Appeal No. 54 of 1986 -87. The Appeal was dismissed and the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer for restoration of the land on the Respondent No. 6, depositing payment of Rs. 20,000/ -was confirmed. The order by the appellate authority was passed on 07.01.1991. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 6 does not take any steps to deposit the amount and the land continued to remain in occupation and possession of the petitioner. Later, in the year 1998, the Respondent No. 6 filed an application before the Circle Officer for mutation of his name claiming that a sum of Rs. 20,000/ -was already deposited by his father, late Guna Ho in compliance of the appellate courts order dated 07.01.1991. The application for mutation was dismissed on the ground that the receipt in respect of the purported deposit of money was not produced. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 6 moved the Deputy Commissioner Land Reforms sometime in the year 2004. The matter was remanded to the Sub -Divisional Officer, Chaibasa, who by his order dated 21.11.2005, directed the Opposite Party/petitioner to receive the compensation amount. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Sub -Divisional Officer on the ground that the proceeding for restoration of the land and to accept the amount of compensation is bad in law, since it is barred by limitation and also on the ground that the petitioner has perfected his right over the land by the principles of adverse possession by remaining in occupation of the land for more than 30 years since the date of actual physical possession.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would argue that under Section 71 (a) of the C.N.T. Act, the process for restoration of the land could not be initiated after the period of limitation defeating the petitioners right, which she had acquired by way of adverse possession.;