The provisions of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, as far as it relates to restoration of land to the members of Scheduled Tribes, should be construed liberally, but the courts should not mechanically pass orders without assigning any reason to discard the documentary evidences filed by the transferee.

S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J.

1. In this writ application, the petitioner has impugned the orders passed by. different authorities under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, by reason of which, on an application made by Bhuswa Munda, respondent No. 5 under Sec. 46 (4-A) of the Act, the concerned authority restored the possession of the disputed land in his favour.

2. Before averting to the respective submissions advanced at the bar, it would be appropriate to portray the factual background.

3. Bhuswa Munda filed an application for restoration of lands of plot Nos. 1053, 2187 and 2820, all of Khata No. 121 of village Rambagh, on the ground that since about 5 years he was dispossessed from the aforesaid lands on the basis of forged documents. On such application being filed by the respondent No. 5, a Land Restoration Case No. 25/85-86 was registered and being noticed, the petitioner filed his show cause contending, inter alia, that plot Nos. 2817, 2819 and 2820 of the said khata were surrendered by the recorded tenant in favour of the landlord, who came in khas possession over the same the landlord settled those lands in favour of one Bichha Ram Agrawalla as well as the petitioner under a deed (Hukumnama) dated 31.3.1948 on payment of consideration and thereupon said Bichha Ram as well as the petitioner came in khas possession over the same. Their names were mutated and rents were paid and thereafter, after vesting of the land under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, their names were entered in the Government register and rents were being paid regularly to the Government on grant of receipt since 1954. After death of said Bichha Ram, on or about in 1976 his son Bajrang Lai Agrawalla and four daughters inherited the lands belonged to Bichha Ram and they are still in khas possession over the same without any obstruction or protest from any corner. Similarly the petitioner is in continuous possession of the lands of his share and he constructed a house and a well in portion thereof.

Further case of the petitioner is that the deceased father, Kundan Lai Agrawalla purchased plot No. 1053 measuring an area of 1.25 acre of khata No. 121 of the said village from one Ram Niwas Agrawalla by a registered sale deed dated 19.7.1966 on payment of cash consideration and since then he came in possession over the same. Name of his father was also mutated in the office of the Anchal Adhikari and rent was regularly paid en and grant of receipt. According to the petitioner, plot No. 1053 having an area of 2.61 acres, which were surrendered by the recorded raiyat to the ex-landlord, who took possession of the entire area and out of this total area of 2.61 acres, 1.25 acre was settled with Ram Niwas Agrawalla by the ex-landlord and Ram Niwas subsequently sold the said area of land to the father of the petitioner, Kundan Lal. After death of father of the petitioner in 1972-73 petitioner came in possession over the same and still continuing by making payment of rent. On the aforesaid background the petitioner submitted before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaribagh, respondent No. 4 that he has perfected his title being in possession of the said land for more than 12 years.

4. It is an admitted fact of the parties that respondent No. 4, on such dispute being raised by the parties, called for a report from the Anchal Adhikari, who after making spot inspection and holding local enquiry, submitted his report dated 25.7.1985. The respondent No. 4 while accepting the said report, however, rejected the claim of the petitioner and ordered for restoration of the land to the respondent No. 5 only on the ground that the petitioner could not file any document regarding settlement of land by the recorded tenant or their heirs to the ex-landlord. In his opinion, as the petitioner could not file the copy of return filed by ex-landlord in favour of the petitioner after vesting, the petitioners case was doubtful. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal being numbered