AJIT KUMAR SINHA,J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 11.8.98 passed in Singhbhum Revenue Revision No. 347 of 87 by the Respondent No. 2, the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi contained in Annexure -6 and the order dated 17.8.87 passed in S.A.R. Appeal No. 75 of 85 -86 by the respondent No. 3 the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum West contained in Annexure -5 and the order dated 26.8.85 passed in S.A.R. Case No. 85 of 79 -80 by the respondent No. 4 the S.D.O. Saraikella, Singhbhum West contained in Annexure -4 and further directing the respondents not to disturb the possession of the petitioner over the lands in question.
(2.) THE facts in brief are stated as under: The petitioner filed a petition S.A.R. Case No. 85 of 79 -80 before Sub Divisional Officer, Saraikella, Singhbhum West for restoration of lands bearing plot No. 339 (of area 0.22 acres) plot No. 340 (Area of 1.53) plot No. 343 of area 0.73 acres and plot No. 354 (of area 0.83 acres) of total area 3.31 acres under Khata No. 37 of village Sanjar within Rajnagar Police Station, Dist. Singhbhum West against Chinibas Mahto father of the opposite party on the ground that the said Chinibas Mahato is in possession of the aforesaid lands on the basis of an illegal compromise decree obtained by practicing fraud on the petitioner's father Tanu Sardar and on his uncle Panjam Sardar and also by suppressing the facts and law in the court of the Munsif at Saraikella. The aforesaid case was registered as S.A.R. case No. 85/79 -80 before the Sub -Divisional Officer, at Saraikella. During the pendency Chinibas Mahato died and he was substituted by his two sons namely Yadav Mahato and Suren Chandra Mahato and they were made parties and they filed their show -cause stating therein that the O.P. purchased the land from the grandfather of the applicant petitioner more than 30 years ago on payment of valuable consideration and since then they are in cultivating possession. They have also contended that they had valid right, title by adverse possession in the land long before S.A.R. Act came into force in the locality. The respondents herein stated that the land in question was wrongly recorded in the name of the applicant's father and its co -sharer in the last Revisional survey. The Opposite party filed a Title Suit No. 46/74 for the land in question for declaration of his title and possession with a prayer that the survey entry in the name of Tuna Sardar and others are wrong. The Title Suit ended in compromise decree in favour of the Opposite party wherein Tuna Sardar and others ancestors of the applicant have admitted the right, title and possession of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 with regard to the land in question. They have admitted that the survey entry of the proceeding land in question is wrong. After hearing both sides the learned Sub -Divisional Officer allowed the restoration application S.A.R. No. 85/79 -80 of the petitioner and directed to restore the land in question to the applicant vide its order dated 25.10.80 and the land was restored to the petitioner and since then the petitioner is in possession of the land in question till today. Thereafter, the opposite party preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order of restoration which was registered as T.A. Misc. Appeal No. 76 of 1980 -81 and the learned Appellate Court after hearing the matter remanded the case for disposal again to the Sub -Divisional Officer, Saraikella. Upon remand, the learned Sub -Divisional Magistrate after hearing both sides was pleased to dismiss the prayer for restoration of the lands vide its order dated 26.8.85. The petitioner being constrained preferred an appeal against the order of learned Sub -Divisional Officer which was registered as S.A.R. case No. 74/85 -86 and the learned Dy. Commissioner after hearing the parties was pleased to dismiss the said appeal vide its order dated 17.8.87. Thereafter, a revision was preferred before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi challenging the aforesaid order being Singhbhum Revenue Revision No. 347 of 1987 which was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 11.8.98.
(3.) THE main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there was no obligation of limitation in a proceeding under Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. It has further been contended that the compromise decree is a fraudulent transfer since it was based on an oral transfer. It has further been contended that Deputy Commissioner was a necessary party in any suit and since he was not impleaded, the compromise decree has no value in the eyes of law in view of Section 46(3) of the C.N.T. Act.;