D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner whose Writ Petition being C.W.J.C. No. 502 of 1999(R) was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 23rd February, 2012 and, hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) Factual Matrix: This appellant is claiming to be ownership of the property in question through original owner namely Mahadeo Oraon bearing Plot no. 606, Khata no. 99, ad-measuring 1.02 acres of land situated at VillageBagichatoli, Tupudana, District- Ranchi. Late Prakashmati Devi (respondent no.5-who died during the pendency of the case and now substituted by Atul Bhala) was claiming to be purchaser of the property from her predecessor-in-title (Banwari Lal Sharma). Mahadeo Oraon transferred the property to Banwari Lal Sharma somewhere in the year 1944, as alleged by respondent no.5. Later on, Title Suit No. 441 of 1959 was instituted by Banwari Lal Sharma in the court of Munsif, Ranchi. On the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties to the litigation, decree was passed on 9 th February, 1960. The decree passed by the competent civil court was never challenged by any party. The decree passed by the competent civil court was thus accepted by the parties to the litigation right from 9 th February, 1960 onwards, till, an application was preferred under Section 71-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act, 1908"). This application was preferred by Bimal Kachhap, who is husband of the present appellant, for restoration of possession of the property in question on the ground that transfer of the property in the year 1944 and decree passed by the competent civil court are null and void because the property was transferred from tribal to non-tribal. This case was registered as SAR Case No. 138 of 1982-83. This case was instituted on 22nd August, 1982 in the court of Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi. This case was decided by the competent revenue authority vide order dated 6 th March, 1986 (Annexure-1) wherein it has been held that Rs.20,000/- compensation shall be paid by respondent no. 5 to Bimal Kachhap. This order was passed under 2nd proviso to Section 71-A of the Act, 1908. Thus, restoration of land was not allowed. Bimal Kachhap, who is husband of the appellant, preferred an appeal bearing SAR Appeal No. 56(R)-15 of 1986-87 before the revenue appellate authority. The appeal preferred by the husband of this appellant was allowed vide order dated 6 th January, 1987 (Annexure-2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the appellate authority's order, revision application was preferred by Late Prakashmati Devi bearing Ranchi Revenue Revision No. 127 of 1987. Meanwhile as the appeal preferred by the husband of the appellant was allowed, possession was handed over to the appellant on 19th October, 1994 (Annexure-3). The revisional authority allowed the revision application preferred by Late Prakashmati Devi vide order dated 6 th October, 1998 (Annexure-4) and the matter was remanded for re-fixation of the compensation amount under 2 nd proviso to Section 71-A of the Act, 1908. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the revisional authority's order dated 6th October, 1998, this appellant preferred a Writ Petition being C.W.J.C. No. 502 of 1999(R). The aforesaid Writ Petition preferred by this appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 23rd February, 2012 and, hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
(3.) Arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that originally the property was transferred from Mahadeo Oraon to Banwari Lal Sharma in the year 1944, which was based upon no written sale deed and which was oral transfer. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that in Title Suit No. 441 of 1959 between Banwari Lal Sharma and Mahadeo Oraon, a compromise decree was passed on 9th February, 1960, which is null and void based upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court reported in 1975 Bihar Bar Council Journal 433 and also based upon the decision reported in 2003 (4) JCR 206. Thus, no right, title and interest can be claimed by the successors of Banwari Lal Sharma. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that no error was committed by the appellate authority while deciding SAR Appeal No. 56(R)-15 of 1986-87 vide order dated 6th January, 1987 (Annexure-2 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 502 of 1999(R) dated 23rd February, 2012 deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that there was no super structure on the property in question whatsoever arises. There was no existence of Petrol Pump, at all on the property in question. Licenses were required to be taken before the establishment of the Petrol Pump and there is no such evidence on record of legally constructed Petrol Pump. These aspects of the matter have not been properly appreciated by the revisional authority while allowing Ranchi Revenue Revision No. 127 of 1987 vide order dated 6th October, 1998 nor it was properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the Writ Petition preferred by this appellant. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that after remand of the matter by the revisional authority for re-fixation of the compensation amount under 2nd proviso to Section 71-A of the Act, 1908, the competent revisional authority has not yet finalized the amount of the compensation after remand of the matter. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that all the revenue authorities have held that transfer of the property was illegal and, hence, 2nd proviso to Section 71-A of the Act, 1908 ought not to have been invoked. On the contrary, the possession ought to have been restored to this appellant. This appellant is claiming only 30 decimals of land out of total 1.02 acres of Plot no. 606, Khata no. 99, Village- Bagichatoli, Tupudana, DistrictRanchi. It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that after the appellate authority has passed order dated 6th January, 1987, the possession of 30 decimals of land of the aforesaid property was already handed over to this appellant.;