Jharkhand High Court
Bimal Kishore Sahu And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 26 April, 2001
Author: M.Y. Eqbal
Bench: M.Y. Eqbal
ORDER M.V. Eqbal, J.
1. The petitioners being not satisfied with the appellate order, dated 21.5.1997 in SAR Appeal No. 93/R-15/93-94 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, as affirmed by order, dated 7.9.1999 in SAR Revision No. 259/97 by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division. Ranchi have challenged both of them.
2. The dispute relates to land measuring 1.23 acres of plot No. 248 under Khata No. 74 situated in Mouza Hatma. PS Lalpur in the district of Ranchi. The case of petitioners is that the land in question was purchased by their father Late Jugal Kishore Sahu from Mangra Oraon by registered sale-deed dated 12.7.1958 on payment of consideration amount of Rs. 2,000/-. It originally belonged to landlord. Khan Bahadur M.H. Rahman, who by its hukwnnama, dated 6.11.1952 earlier transferred the right and title in favour of Mangra Oraon for construction of a house, well, etc.. the land being uncultivable and barren. Further, according to petitioners, Late Jugal Kishore Sahu constructed a pucca dwelling on the land in dispute and the same is chaparbandi land. In this connection reliance has been placed on hukumnomo, dated 6.11.1952 and the rent receipts as contained in Annexure 3 series, where lands were shown to be chaparbandi lands.
3. After about 30 years, Mangra Oraon (Now deceased) filed a petition for restoration under Section 71-A of the CNT Act alleging fraud played by late Jugal Kishore Sahu in obtaining the land in question. It was registered as SAR Case No. 222/87-88 wherein Late Jugal Kishore Sahu appeared and objected the prayer on the ground that the land in question was chaparbandi land and thus, provision of Section 71-A was not applicable. On hearing the parties the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi by its order, dated 29.9.1993 held the land as chaparbandi, dismissed the application for restoration but taking into consideration the fact that Late Mangra Oraon was adivasi passed order under 2nd Proviso to Section 71-A of the CNT Act for payment of compensation of Rs. 2 lacs to the heirs, respondent Nos. 6 and 7, they having substituted, in the meantime in place of Late Mangra Oraon.
4. The respondent Madan Oraon (son of Late Mangra Oraon) moved before the appellate authority in SAR Appeal No. 93/R-15/ 93-94. It was heard by Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, who vide impugned order, dated 21.5.1997 held that there was no structure over the land in question: disbelieved the stand that the lands in question were chaparbandi, held the land as a raiyati and the transfer made in 1958 in violation of provisions of Sections 46 and 49 of CNT Act. appeal was allowed, vide order, dated 21.5.1997 and the lower Court's order was set-aside with a direction to restore the lands in question in favour of respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
5. The petitioners being aggrieved moved in SAR Revision No. 259/97 and brought to the notice of learned Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, a report submitted by Circle Officer. Sadar, Ranchi, contained in letter No. 47(ii), dated 9.4.1997. The petitioners placing reliance on the said report tried to justify their stand that the land in question was chaparbandi but the revision application was not entertained, nor admitted and rejected vide impugned order, dated 7.9.1999 on the ground that plea was not taken that the appeal as was preferred by the petitioners,
6. At this stage, it is mentioned that petitioners earlier moved this Court in CWJC No. 1344/98(R) which was disposed of on 28th July, 1998 without interference as a revision application was pending, but interim order of stay was passed till the final hearing in the revision case. The respondent Nos. 6 and 7 on their appearance has taken plea that land in question is TSNR-L in terms of Annexure 1 page 28 and no substantial structure standing over the same and thus, disputed the claim of petitioners that it was a chaparbandi land. It is alleged that the hukumnoma as contained in Annexure 2 is forged and fabricated document and the sale-deed 12.7.1958 is void ab initio being violative of Section 46 of the CNT Act.
7. During the hearing of the case one of the questions raised relating to revisional power of authority as delegated under Section 217 of CNT Act. 1908, which reads as follows :--
"217. Bar to further appeals, with Proviso far revision by Board or Commissioner.--Order passed by the Commissioner, or Deputy Commissioner in appeals preferred under Section 215 shall not be open to any further appeal; but the Board or (in the case of appeals decided by the Deputy Commissioner), the Commissioner may call for the case and pass such orders thereon as it or he may think proper."
8. From bare perusal of the provisions of Section 217, it would appear that there is a bar of further appeal against an order passed under Section 215 but the revisional authority has been delegated with suo motu power to call for a case and to pass such orders thereon as it may think proper. The suo motu power conferred upon the revisional authority is wide enough to entertain any revision application not only to correct the errors of law but also the errors of fact. In this connection one may rely on Patna High Court decision in Bishram Sahu v. Bhairo Oraon and Ors. reported in 1988 PLJR 610.
9. The first Court of Special Officer. Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi by its order, dated 29.9.1993 held the land in question as choparbandi, which is a finding of fact. At the appellate stage finding of fact was reversed vide impugned order, dated 21.5.1997 in SAR Appeal No. 93/R-15/93-94 on the ground that there is no structure over the land in question.
It has not been disputed that during the pendency of the appeal a report as called for from Circle Officer. Sadar. Ranchi, who submitted a report vide letter No. 47(ii), dated 9.4.1997. Though, it was mentioned that there is no house or structure over the land in question, in the boundary of the said land house of Sith Munda in the North and a house of R.K. Chatterjee in the West were shown. Though, the aforesaid report was available much before the appellate order was passed (on 21.5.1997), it is not made clear as to why the appellate authority failed to take into consideration the report to give finding relating to nature of land, taking into consideration the nature of adjoining lands in question.
10. So far as revisional order, dated 7.9.1999 in SAR Revision No. 259/97 is concerned, it cannot be held to be good, the revisional authority having failed to exercise its suo motu power to take into consideration the report aforesaid.
11. As observed above, there is no provision of second appeal against an order under Section 215; the revisional power vests with the competent authority which is suo motu in nature, and it has wide power to correct even the errors of fact. If, a new fact was brought on record, the revisional authority cannot ignore the same on the ground the fact was not pleaded in the appeal. On its own application of mind the revisional authority should decide the matter by a reasoned order, though it is always open to him to discard any report for good reason.
12. In the circumstances, the appellate authority having failed to take into consideration the report as was submitted by the Circle Officer, Sadar. Ranchi. dated 9.4.1997 and the revisional authority having failed to exer-
cise its discretion in judicious manner, both the orders, dated 21.5.1997 passed in SAR Appeal No. 93/R-15/93-94 and 9.9.1999 passed in SAR Revision No. 259/97 are set-aside and the case is remitted to Deputy Commissioner, Ranchl to decide SAR Appeal No. 93/R-15/94-94, afresh after hearing the parties, taking into consideration all the relevant facts, including the report as contained in letter, dated 9.4.1997. It is also open to the appellate authority to ask any competent officer to enquire and submit a fresh report relating to nature of land.
13. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. However, there shall be no order as to costs
14. Petition disposed of.