The principle of res judicata applies to subsequent petitions for restoration of land under Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, even if the subsequent petition is filed by different members of the same family.

S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. The order dated 25th of October, 1980 passed by the Deputy Collector, Khunti in Case No. 333/79-80-TR No. 71/7980 in under challenge in the present case. By this impugned order the respondent-Deputy Collector, Khunti has allowed the petition, which was filed by the Respondent No. 7 under Sec. 7-A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as CRT. Act) and Bihar Schedule Area Regulation, 1969. The same has been allowed in part and the petitioner has been ordered to restore the possession of 0.66 acres of land from the disputed plot in favour of Respondent No. 7. The appellate order dated 15th of July, 1985 passed by the respondent-Additional Collector, Ranchi in S.A.R. Case No. 57/ (R)-15/80-81 and the revisional order passed by the respondent-Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in S.A.R. Revision No. 146/85 are also under challenge, having confirmed the original order.

2. The land in question, which was subject-matter of petition under Sec. 71-A of the C.N.T. Act, was total measuring 2.66 acres of Plot No. 288 under Khata No. 133 in R.S. Khatiyan situated in Village-Baboikundi, P.S. Tamar in the district of Ranchi. The said land originally belonged to one Jagmohan Patar (ancestor of Respondent Nos. 6 to 8). The father of the petitioner, namely, Kali Nath Mahto purchased the same having paid consideration money, by two separate registered deeds of sale dated 19th of May, 1947 and 24th of June, 1947. Said Kali Nath Mahto thereafter came in possession of the same, which ultimately vested with the petitioner by a family arrangement. The petitioner is in possession of the land in question for a long period and is/was paying rent to the State of Bihar.

3. The provision of Sec. 71-A of the C.N.T. Act was promulgated subsequently in the year 1969. The Respondent No. 6, Shiveshwar Patar filed a petition under Sec. 71-A of the C.N.T. Act in the year 1977-78 for restoration of only 2 acres of land out of said Plot No. 288, Khata No. 133. The case was numbered as Case No. 459/77-78. The Deputy Collector, Khunti rejected the claim of said Respondent No. 6, Shiveshwar Patar by order dated 16th of September, 1978, passed in said Case No. 459/77-78 on the ground that the same was time barred. This order was not challenged by the respondents and become final. Subsequently the husband of Respondent No. 7, late Ram Kumar Patar (father of Respondent No. 8), who is nephew of Respondent No. 6, Shiveshwar Patar, filed a petition for restoration under Sec. 71-A of the C.N.T. Act for restoration of total area of 2.66 acres of land out of said plot No. 288. This time it was numbered as S.A.R. Case No. 333 of 1979-80. Notice was issued to the petitioner, when the petitioner filed show cause reply. The petitioner raised the following objection:-

(a) The petition was time barred, as was held in the earlier case;

(b) The petition was not maintainable, applicants (Respondents herein) being not scheduled caste, Patar having not been shown as tribe under the Schedule; and

(c) The earlier petition for restoration, which was filed by the other family members, having been dismissed, being time barred and no appeal having been preferred against the same, present petition for restoration by members of the same family is barred by the principles of res-judicata.

The Respondent-Deputy Collector, Khunti by the impugned order dated 25th of October, 1980 held as follows:-

(i) The applicants (Respondents herein) are Scheduled Tribe;

(ii) The petition for restoration was not time barred; and

(iii) The principle of res-judicae is applicable with respect to only two acres of land and not with respect to 0.66 acres of land as earlier petition for restoration was made with respect to 2 acres of land.

Thereby he has ordered to restore 0.66 acres of land out of the aforesaid plot in favour of Respondent Nos. 6 to 8.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7. According to them, the respon