RAJESH SHANKAR,J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24th July, 2006 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no.2- Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in R.M. (Tanaja) Appeal No.98 of 1991-92, whereby the respondent no.2 has dismissed the appeal and has affirmed the order dated 26 th September, 1991 passed by the respondent no.3- Settlement Officer, Dumka in Tanaja Revision No.19 of 1983. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 26th September, 1991 (Annexure- 4 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no.3, whereby the revision filed by the respondent no.5-Phuleshwar Laik has been allowed setting aside the order dated 2nd December, 1982 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Hansdiha and also for quashing several entries made in favour of the respondent no.5 during Khanapuri of recent survey in respect of Jamabandi no.53, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
(2.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the land appertaining to jamabandi no. 53 of Mouza Siltha and J.B No. 56 of Mouza Silpher both within Sub-Division Dumka were jointly recorded in the names of Mishri Manjhi, Manager Manjhi (father of the petitioner) and Massomat Dhundhu and their possession were recorded separately in the remarks column of the Khatiyan. Similarly, the lands appertaining to J.B No. 25 of Mouza Jalway within Sub- Division, Dumka were jointly recorded in the name of Mishri Manjhi and Manager Manjhi with their joint possession as shown in the remarks column of the Khatian. Mishri Manjhi died prior to 1937 and Massomat Dhundhu died in the year 1951. The father of the petitioner also died in the year 1957 and the petitioner being the only member of the family of the recorded tenants became the absolute owner of the said property and came in possession of the same. In the year 1961, the petitioner came to know that Horil Laik, the father of Phuleshwar Laik (the respondent no. 5) who is the cousin of Kunti Manjhian has brought a deed of adoption in existence purported to have been executed on 02.02.1961 whereby Kunti Manjhian had taken the respondent no. 5 in adoption. The petitioner filed a petition for cancellation of the deed of adoption vide Misc. Case No. 3 of 1961 however the said application was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 03.06.1961 for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Title Suit No. 2 of 1961 for cancellation of deed of adoption and during the pendency of the said suit, the father of the respondent no. 5 entered into a compromise with the petitioner and upon the said term of compromise, the petitioner agreed to give 1/4th Share of the recorded tenant namely Massomat Dhundhu to Kunti Manjhian. According to the petitioner, in the year 1962 during Khanapuri stage of the Survey Operation, the respondent no. 5 illegally got his name entered with respect to half of Jamabandi no. 53 with the collusion of Survey Amin and Kanungo. The petitioner having come to know about the said entry filed Tanaza No. 03 of Mouza Siltha to delete the name of respondent no. 5 from the record of J.B No. 53 but the same was rejected by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Hansadiha (respondent no. 4). Thereafter, the petitioner filed revision before the Settlement Officer, Dumka (respondent no. 3) who remanded the matter to the respondent no. 4 for rehearing of the case. On remand the respondent no. 4 vide order dated 02.12.1982 cancelled the entry made in favour of the respondent no.5 by holding that since Mishri Manjhi had died prior to 1937, Kumti Manjhian had no share in his property and she was not entitled to take the respondent no. 5 in adoption. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent no. 5 preferred Tanaza Revision No.19 of 1983 before the respondent no.3 who vide order dated 26th September, 1991 allowed the revision by holding that the deed of adoption was valid. The petitioner filed appeal before the respondent no.2, however the same was also dismissed vide order dated 24.07.2006 by holding that in view of compromise petition filed in T.S No.2 of 1961, the respondent no. 3 rightly held that the petitioner cannot deny the very existence of the adoption deed.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C. to S.C. (L&C) No.1 as well as perused the materials available on record.;