Considering the judgment order passed in the second appeal by the High Court as also the orders passed on successive applications under Section 71A of the CNT Act, he came to the companyclusion that fresh application under Section 71A was number maintainable.
Despite rejection of the suit and the applications moved under Section 71A of the CNT Act, a fresh application was moved by the appellant claiming himself to be the heir of Chamtu Pahan alleging therein that he by caste is Munda and is a member of the Scheduled Tribes and is the priest Pahan of his village and the land in question measuring a total area of 6.38 acres is Bakast Bhuinhari Pahani land recorded in the name of his grandfather Chamtu Munda Pahan and others in the record of rights.
The application moved by the appellant was allowed vide order dated 21.12.1987 by the Special Officer, Scheduled Areas Regulation, who directed restoration of possession of the land in favour of the appellant.
The private respondents herein thereupon preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Ranchi which was allowed by him.
It was further alleged that although such land is number alienable, the ancestors of the respondents by playing fraud on the grandfather of the appellant, namely, Chamtu Munda, took the same on oral zerpesgi mortgage for Rs.154/ for a period of 20 years as mentioned in the record of rights in the year 1922 and, thus, the transfer being in companytravention of Section 46 of the CNT Act, possession of the land be restored.
The appellant preferred a revision before the Divisional Commissioner under Section 217 of the CNT Act, which was allowed and restoration of possession order was restored.
All these applications were ultimately rejected by the Special Officer, Scheduled Areas Regulation, in terms of the orders dated 16.9.1976, 7.7.1977 and 31.12.1983 respectively holding that the predecessors in interest of the respondents had perfected their title and the applications for restoration were barred by limitation.
The said suit was decreed by the trial companyrt and the appeal preferred by the predecessors in interest of the respondents herein was dismissed.
Later on, by the Bihar Scheduled Areas Amendment Regulation, 1985 Regulation 1 of 1985 , after the word raiyat, the words or a Mundari Khunt Kattidar or a Bhuinhar were inserted.
After companymencement of the Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1969 Regulation 1 of 1969 , successive applications were filed under Section 71A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 for short the CNT Act by the predecessors in interest of Chamtu Pahan bearing SAR Nos.
1909 of 1948 filed by the defendants in the original suit was allowed by the High Court on 20.9.1951 and the judgment decree passed by the trial companyrt and that of the first appellate companyrt was set aside.
The Court came to the finding that the appellants predecessors neither redeemed mortgage number came in possession of the land and that the suit for recovery of possession was number maintainable.
A second appeal being Appeal from Appellate Decree No.
That was challenged by the respondents by filing a writ petition in the High Court.
65/76, 82/77 and 543/83.
The Court recorded the finding that there was an oral usufructuary mortgage as number yet been repaid and that mortgage, under Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act, is bad in law and as such the defendants possession as mortgagees must be ignored.
6/1 of Village Hocher, P.S. Kanke, District Ranchi was recorded in the record of rights as Bakast Bhuinhari land in the name of Chamtu Pahan others as landlords.
It was alleged that the land in question is companymunity land, the usufruct of which is used for the companymunity feast at the time of Sarna Puja or Bhut Puja held by the companymunity members on several occasions of the agricultural year and the said land cannot be transferred to a person other than the members of a Bhuinhari family as provided under Section 48 of the CNT Act.
In the record of rights in the remarks companyumn, these lands were shown in possession of Kolha Kumhar others, the predecessors in interest of the private respondents herein as Beyayani Bakbaje.
288 within Khewat No.
The recorded bhumidar Chamtu Pahan others filed a title suit against Kolha Kumhar others for relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession.
P. NAOLEKAR,J. The brief facts of the case necessary for deciding the questions involved are that the land of plot Nos.
1695, 517 and 802 under Khata No.
