SRIMATI AMRIT KUMARI Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RANCHI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the orders dated 31.3.1980 as contained in Annexure -1 passed by respondent no. 1 and the order dated 3.7.1978 as contained in Annexure -5 passed by respondent no. 2 are in question. By reason of the aforementioned orders, respondent nos. 1 and 2 directed that the land in question which was auctioned for arrears of rent through Rent Suit case no. 372 R -8 of 1933 -34 in terms of provisions of Sec. 4 of Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyats' Agricultural Lands Restoration Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as the said Act) be restored in favour of Respondent no. 3. As the facts are not much in dispute, it is not necessary to state the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that the predecessor -in -interest of respondent no. 3 was owner of a land. It is alleged that in the year 1935 -36 there had been a movement wherein the Tanabhagats had resolved not to pay any rent in favour of the State of Bihar. By reason of the provisions of the said Act, if any land was sold in auction in pursuance of any freedom movement launched or believed to have been launched any time between the years 1913 -42, the same may be restored.

(2.) The respondent no. 2 while passing the order as contained in Annexure -5 to the application purported to have taken into consideration the evidence on record. It appears that the claim of the petitioner was that Ratu Bhagat predecessor -in -interest of respondent no. 3 was not a Tanabhagat nor he could be so, taking into consideration his age at the time when the land in question was sold in auction.

(3.) The further defence is that the said application was malafide inasmuch as the said Ratu Bhagat filed an application for restoring the land in question in terms of the provisions of Sec. 71 -A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act which was dismissed. The said application for restoration is contained in Annexure -2 to the writ application. The defence points out that the aforementioned application on the basis whereof the order dated 3.7.1978 as contained in Annexure -5 was passed was a mala -fide one and not for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the aforementioned Act.