The court emphasized the limitations on suits to vary or set aside decisions of statutory authorities under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, highlighting the statutory bar under Section 258.

Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.

1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the impugned order dated 17.2.1997 and 21.9.2001 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla and Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gumla who are arraigned as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein whereby and whereunder both the statutory authorities held that the possession of the lands and the instrument of transfer are in favour of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6.

2. The facts in brief are set out as under:

According to the petitioners the lands in question have various plots and Khata No. 194, Khata No. 131 measured 6.34 acres and 0.76 acres of village Nazma Police Station, Sisai, District-Gumla and the same was recorded In the name of Chotka Klmani Oraon son of Deva Oran, Kharia Oraon and others who were In possession of the aforesaid land. It has further been submitted that on 16.11.1994 the petitioners Gafua Oran, Karma Oran, Jhiran Oran, Biria Oraon filed Title Suit No. 29 of 1994 before the Civil Court with the following prayer:

For declaration of title to the lands described in schedule A & B of the plaint and the petitioners further prayed that the order passed in permission case No. 137/91-92 dated 5.5.1992 and order of permission appeal No. 21/92-93 dated 28.6.1994 be declared illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiffs/petitioners herein. They have further prayed to declare that the Sada deed of gift dated 17.11.1957 of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff.

3. It appears .that the learned Sub-Judge-I ordered that the plaintiffs suit be and the same is hereby decreed ex parte without cost against defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and it is decreed ex parte vide order dated 25.1.1997 against proforma defendants.

4. It is submitted that the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 namely Barti Oran and Bandhani Oran filed an application for mutation of names with regard to plot Nos. 1579, 242, 1176, 1495, 1498, 1500, 1577, 1578, 1580, 1175, 1344, ll65, 1495 and 1497, total 16 plots measuring 7.10 acres of Khata Nos. 194 and 131 of village Nazma Police Station. Sisai, District-Gumla. The said case was numbered as Mutation Case No. 20 of 1995-96. By order dated 18.1.1995 the Circle Officer sought for a report from Halka Karmachari and also issued general information. On 24.1.1995 the Halka Karmachari submitted its report that the applied plots were recorded in the name of Haria Oraon vide final order dated 24.4.1995.

5. The Circle Officer, Sisai after considering all the aspects and rival contentions held that the petitioners hold the land and there is a decree of a competent Civil Courts in their favour in Title Suit No. 29/1994 and the contention of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 that the sale deed of 1992 is pursuant to gift on plain paper and the permission of transfer granted in Case No. 137-A/1991-92 and order of permission in appeal No. 21/92-93 was illegal and accordingly rejected the application for mutation. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 20.4.1995 preferred an appeal before the learned Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gumla which was numbered as Mutation Appeal No. 13/95-96 and vide order dated 17.2.1997 the respondent No. 3 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of respondent No. 4. The petitioners, being dissatisfied with the aforesaid appeal and order moved before the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla. The said case was numbered as Case No. 3R-15/1997-98. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla vide its order dated 21.9.2001 disallowed the appeal of the petitioners after considering the contention of the respective parties which is sought to be challenged before this Hon'ble Court by way of the present writ petition.

6. The main contention raised by the petitioners, is that the order dated 17.2.1997 and 21.9.2001 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is illegal and without jurisdiction. The second contention raised i