JUDGMENT :

I.A. No. 8258 of 2019:

1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing.

2. The instant interlocutory application is under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 110 days in preferring the instant appeal.

3. No objection has been made on behalf of the respondents since no counter affidavit to the delay condonation application has been filed.

4. This Court, after taking into consideration the reason assigned in the instant application as also considering the fact that instead of dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation it would be appropriate in the ends of justice to decide the appeal on its merit, accordingly, the delay of 110 days in filing the appeal, is condoned.

5. In the result, the instant interlocutory application is disposed of.

L.P.A. No. 236 of 2019:

6. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred by the writ petitioner-appellant under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 24.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 4960 of 2010, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 11.11.2009 passed in Misc. Case No. 2/08-09 has been refused to be interfered with while dismissing the writ petition.

7. The brief facts of the lis as per the pleading made in the writ petition which is required to be enumerated, reads as hereunder:

The writ petitioner, namely, Abdul Majid Khan claims to have a land by way of settlement appertaining to Plot No. 194 under Khata No. 49 situated at Village Nimakatu within the district of Chatra which was made in favour of his father sometime in the year 1949 by virtue of Sada Hukumnama. The ancestors of the writ petitioner, after the settlement of the aforesaid land in favour of his father, have shared the said land by way of family arrangement in favour of the writ petitioner so far as the land in question is concerned which was subsequently been informed to the ex-landlord and the name of the writ petitioner was recorded in the Serishta of the ex-landlord and after vesting the zamindari the ex-landlord filed return showing him as a raiyat, which was acknowledged by the State and jamabandi was created in the name of the writ petitioner and his name was entered in Register-II.

The writ petitioner has started paying rent to the State of Bihar and paid till 1960-61 but he failed to pay the same from 1961 to 1964- 65. The Circle Officer has issued notice to the writ petitioner on 23.11.1987 stating therein that the demand in respect of the land which is with regard to 21.04 acres over Plot No. 194 under Khata No. 49 appears to be doubtful. In consequence thereof, a proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner which was numbered as Illegal Demand Case No. 17/1987-88. The writ petitioner had appeared and produced all the documents. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, on scrutiny of the documents, had opined that the jamabandi was opened without the order of Circle Officer, as such, appears to be doubtful and at the same time jamabandi of the writ petitioner was ordered to be cancelled and the records were forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra vide order dated 02.05.1988 directed for cancellation of the jamabandi running in the name of the writ petitioner without issuance of show cause notice before acting on the report of the Circle Officer and Land Reforms Deputy Collector , Chatra. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, approached to this Court by filing a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1145 of 1988 (R).

This Court, quashed the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 05.05.1994 and remitted the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra for fresh decision in accordance with law by relying upon the decisions reported in Harihar Singh vs. Additional Collector, 1978 BBCJ 323 and Khiru Gope vs. L.R.D.C. Jamui, AIR 1983 Patna 121. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra, after laps