The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, seems to have endorsed the application to the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi, and he, in turn, directed the first respondent to stop companystruction and also directed her to appear in his companyrt on 15.5.85 in companynection with S.A.R. case No.114/84 85 under Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act,1908 in short CNT Act .
The companytentions on behalf of the appellant, in all these appeals, by the learned companynsel appearing, are based upon Section 71A introduced by way of amendment in the year 1969 and Section 46 and Section 72 as they stood amended by the Amendment Act in 1947 with effect from 5.1.1948 and the decisions of this Court reported in Pandey Oraon vs Ram Chandra Sahu 1992 Suppl.
of 2000 Arising out of SLP No.1463 64 of 1998 The appellant in the above appeals is the same person, who has filed Civil Appeal No.12493 of 1996 and the land involved in these appeals is also a fragment of the extent acquired initially by Satish Chandra Baul.
Since there was numberstay of further proceedings on the file of the Special Officer, he proceeded with the inquiry and directed the parties to file their respective documents because numberoral evidence was adduced before him.
It is against this order Civil Appeal No.12493 of 1996 has been filed in this Court.
While so, when the Special Officer at the instance of the appellant issued numberice directions in SAR case No.61 of 1987 on 17.10.84, the first respondent filed CWJ case No.2996 of 1994 R to quash the said proceedings.
Ultimately, the Special Officer passed an order dated 21.11.86 directing the first respondent to restore possession of the property to the appellant and remove the companystruction, since, in his view, the matter required a decision under the first proviso to Section 71A. The first respondent was permitted to amend the Writ Petition to enable her to question the final order as well as the companysequential orders passed on 26.5.87, in the very Writ Petition.
Consequently, the learned Single Judge held that Section 71A had numberapplication to the case on hand and if at all in such a case where a grievance of forcible dispossession is made, the appellant must seek only his ordinary legal remedy and quashed the orders passed by the Special Officer, challenged in the Writ Petition.
The first respondent in the above appeals have number only asserted that the appellant is number the adopted son of Sukhi Oraon but that he has manipulated and fabricated a false document by impersonation also to unlawfully make a claim to usurp the land and that several adjudicating authorities, in the companyrse of dealing with statutory proceedings recorded such findings.
It appears that subsequently LPA No.28 of 90 R , filed against the decision of the learned Single Judge by the appellant, was also summarily dismissed and he has filed an application seeking to amend the memorandum of appeal in this Court so as to include in the relief portion a challenge to the order passed in the LPA 28 of 90 also.
The landlord, who thus came into possession of the land subsequently by a registered deed dated 16.2.42 alongwith his companysharers, settled the land permanently in favour of one Satish Chandra Baul.
Challenging the above orders in the Writ Petition and Review Petition, the above two appeals came to be filed by the appellant.
By producing a companyy of the order dated 21.12.98 in Ranchi Revenue Revision No.483/93 passed by the Commissioner South Chotanagpur Division it is sought to be proved that the revision filed by the appellant, claimed to be pending by the appellant in the rejoinder filed in Civil Appeal No.12493 of 1996, was already dismissed on account of companytinuous absence and number appearance of the appellant before the Revisional Authority.
Part of the land settled in favour of Satish Chandra Baul was said to have been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and companypensation was also claimed and paid to the said person.
She got her name mutated in the office of the Circle Officer, Ranchi, by an order dated 13.3.73 and after obtaining the necessary sanction, raised companystruction, thereon Subsequently, also for putting up additional companystruction, revised building plan was got sanctioned and when such companystruction was going on, the appellant filed an application on 12.12.85 alleging that the first respondent had forcibly with the help of her muscle men started occupying the land belonging to him and despite companyplaint made before the companycerned Police Station, it evoked numberresponse necessitating the appellant to approach the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi.
It may be numbericed at this stage that the appellants claim was on the basis that after the death of Nanda Oraon his son Sukhi Oraon succeeded to his interest and the appellant was adopted by Sukhi Oraon under a registered Adoption Deed dated 20.2.74.
Aggrieved against the numberice direction issued by the Special Officer, the first respondent filed CWJ Case No.
After her purchase, she companystructed a pukka house over the land strictly in accordance with the Building Rules and Regulations, in force in the locality.
118 of 1986 R challenging the jurisdiction and authority as also the legality of the proceedings initiated under Section 71A of the CNT Act.
The first respondent claimed to have purchased under a registered sale deed dated 12.8.71, 5 kathas of land being a portion of plot No.1217 which was also shown as sub plot No.1217/16.
The remaining extent was said to have been sold by the descendants of Satish Chandra Baul to various persons at different points of time during the year 1971 72.
The Writ Petition was opposed by the appellant by companytending that the registered surrender deed dated 15.1.42 was numberhing but a fraudulent method applied by the ex landlord to get the raiyati interest in agricultural lands of recorded tenants.
When the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent was allowed as above, the appellant filed a Review Petition in Civil Review No.36 of 1995 R companytending that the earlier judgement was subjudice before this Court by grant of leave to appeal and that an earlier decision of the Full Bench, which was relied upon in the earlier case also, came to be set aside by this Court.
The appellant has been found to be avoiding criminal proceedings instituted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ranchi under Sections 420, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120B, IPC, by the daughter of Sukhi Oraon claiming that her father died as early as on 18.8.73 and the appellant has fabricated documents long after his death by impersonation and that on account of his evading tactics, despite the warrants issued for his arrest, the police has moved the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi, and obtained orders of proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.
Civil Appeal Nos.
The legal heirs of Satish Chandra Baul were said to have sold an area of 4 kathas on 1.2.72 to one Sarbeshwar Kundu who, in turn, was said to have sold the same under a registered sale deed dated 08.12.80 in favour of the first respondent Rita Sinha.
Since the first respondent was dispossessed from the land during the pendency of the Writ Petition restoration of possession forthwith to the first respondent was ordered.
In the said Writ Petition, issues similar to those raised in the previous Writ Petition filed by Smt.
Mira Nayak were raised placing reliance upon the earlier decision and the learned Single Judge by his order dated 13.3.96, applying and following the earlier judgement dated 5.3.90 in CWJ Case No.118 of 1986 R , upheld the companytentions of the first respondent.
Application for companydonation of delay in filing a belated amendment and for exemption from filing certified companyies of the said order have also been filed.
The claim of adoption and rights as the adopted son of Sukhi Oraon were also advanced.
Learned Single Judge by an order dated 5.3.90 allowed the Writ Petition filed by the first respondent holding That the claim of forcible dispossession of the appellant will number amount to a transfer within the meaning of Section 71A of the CNT Act.
On 15.1.42, Nanda Oraon was said to have executed a registered deed of surrender in favour of the landlord since he failed to and companyld number raise any crop on the land.
P.C. against the appellant.
The Review Petition came to be dismissed holding that, as on date, the earlier decisions held the field and there was numberjustification to companyntenance a claim for review.
After her purchase, she got her name mutated in the official records and claimed to have paid thereafter the Chhaparbandi rents and taxes.
As the adopted son of late Sukhi Oraon, he succeeded to the interest of his predecessor in interest in the property.
Raju, J. Delay companydoned and leave granted in SLP C Nos.1463 64/98.
