The legal principle established is that the transfer of land by 'Sada Hukumnama' and long possession by the transferee can confer valid title, and that restoration cases may be barred by res-judicata and unreasonable delay.

JUDGMENT :

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the common order dated 20.12.2021 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi (the respondent no.2) in S.A.R Revision Nos. 97 of 2000 and 98 of 2000 whereby the said revision cases preferred by the petitioner’s father namely Birsa Oraon have been dismissed. Further prayer has been made for quashing and setting aside the orders dated 12.09.2000 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga (the respondent no.3) in S.A.R Appeal No.15 R-15 of 1999-2000 and S.A.R Appeal No. 16R-15 of 1999-2000 whereby the orders dated 30.08.1999 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector-cum-Special Officer, S.A.R., Lohardaga (respondent no.4) in S.A.R Case No. 57 of 1995 and S.A.R Case No. 58 of 1995 respectively have been set aside.

2. I.A. No. 6728 of 2022 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for confining the prayer made in the writ petition to the extent of challenging the common order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2 in S.A.R. Revision No. 97 of 2000 as well as order dated 12.09.2000 passed by the respondent no. 3 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 15 R-15 of 1999-2000.

3. Since the respondent no. 2 has passed the common order dated 20.12.2021 clubbing S.A.R Revision Nos. 97 of 2000 and 98 of 2000 filed against the orders dated 12.09.2000 passed by the respondent no. 3 in S.A.R Appeal No. 15 R-15 of 1999-2000 and S.A.R Appeal No. 16R-15 of 1999-2000, the petitioner is not required to confine the prayer as mentioned in I.A. No. 6728 of 2022. Hence, there is no need to pass any order in the said interlocutory application.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that S.A.R. Case No. 57 of 1995 was filed by the father of the petitioner namely Birsa Oraon against one Chhatraman Ahir for restoration of land appertaining to Khata No. 19, Plot No. 598, Mouza-Budka measuring an area of 0.49 acre whereas S.A.R Case No. 58 of 1995 was filed by him against Chama Ahir for restoration of land appertaining to Khata No. 19, plot nos. 598, 599, 498, Mouza-Budka measuring area of 0.75 acre, 0.05 acre and 0.49 acre respectively claiming that due to non-payment of rent to the ex-landlord, the aforesaid lands were settled to the members of non-tribal (the opposite parties of the aforesaid cases) who are in illegal possession of the same. It is further submitted that the respondent no.4, vide orders dated 30.08.1999 allowed both the land restoration cases in favour of the petitioner’s father and subsequently possession of the same was also delivered to him. Aggrieved thereby, the descendants of Chhatraman Ahir and Chama Ahir (the private respondents) preferred two separate appeals being S.A.R Appeal No.15 R-15 of 1999-2000 and 16R-15/1999-2000 before the respondent no. 3 which were disposed of by the said respondent vide orders dated 12.09.2000 setting aside the orders dated 30.08.1999 passed by the respondent no. 4 holding that the respondent of the said appeal i.e. the petitioner’s father could not produce any evidence as to how his lands were taken over by the then ex-landlord and further held that disputed lands were in possession of the appellants. Thereafter, the petitioner’s father preferred S.A.R. Revision No.97 of 2000 and 98 of 2000 before the respondent no. 2 against the orders dated 12.09.2000 passed by the respondent no. 3, however the said revision applications have also been dismissed vide common order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the respondent no. 2 holding that the S.A.R. applications are hit by the provisions of res-judicata and the claims of restoration of the lands in question are also time barred. It is also submitted that the claim of the respondents are solely based upon ‘Sada Hukumnama’ which has no evidentiary value in the eye of law, on the other hand the name of ancestor of the petitioner was entered into the R.S. record of rights. The order passed by the respondent no.2 is also bad and non-est