The court emphasized the importance of considering relevant evidence and materials in making decisions, especially in cases involving land disputes and restoration of possession.

ORDER :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

No one appears for the respondent no.5.

2. Before the writ Court also neither respondent no.5 appeared nor he was represented through the learned counsel.

3. The appellant is in appeal against the order dated 10th August 2011 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4075 of 2008.

4. As a consequence of the order dated 10th August 2011 by which the order passed in R.M.R No. 22 of 1989-90 was affirmed by the writ Court, the lands comprised under J.B No. 38 old Plot No. 633 at village Baridih within PS Hansdiha in the district of Dumka shall be restored to the descendants of late Hari Naryan Raut.

5. Briefly stated, R.E Case No. 5 of 1986 was registered on an application for restoration filed by Ganesh Raut. Govind Raut who was opposite party in the said proceeding claimed right, title and interest over the lands in question by virtue of Sada Kurfanama executed by the recorded tenant. He further pleaded that the lands in question belonged to his predecessor by virtue of a compromise decree in Title Suit No. 33 of 1959. The Assistant Settlement Officer observed that the compromise decree in Title Suit No. 33 of 1959 was a collusive decree and, therefore, had no sanctity in law. By an order dated 7th June 1986, the restoration application filed by Ganesh Raut was allowed and a direction was issued for restoration of the lands comprised under J.B. No. 38 to him.

6. The aforesaid order passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer was challenged by Govind Raut and the legal heirs of Sobit Raut by filing R.E Appeal No. 305 of 1986-87 in which Ganesh Raut and his brothers Mohan Raut as well as Charan Raut were arrayed as party-respondents. Before the appellate authority a plea was raised on behalf of Govind Raut and others that they were in peaceful possession of the lands in question since last several years and were paying rent since 1955-56. In support of the aforesaid plea the appellants tendered in evidence the documents pertaining to L. A. Case No. 39 of 1955-56 in which the lands comprised under Khesra No. 633 admeasuring about 13 Dhur and under Khesra No. 240 admeasuring about 4 Dhur at Hansdiha were acquired for construction of road from Hansdiha to Godda and the appellants were paid compensation for the said acquisition.

7. The appellate authority by an order dated 25th February 1989 set-aside the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer by which restoration of the lands in question was ordered in favour of the applicant before him. The order passed by the appellate authority came to be challenged in R.M.R No. 22 of 1989-90 which as noticed above was allowed by an order dated 7th April 2008.

8. The learned writ Court has observed as under :

“8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the facts, materials and documents on record. It is an admitted fact that Kurfanama is an unregistered document. Learned Commissioner has found that there is no supporting document on record even of continuous possession. The petitioners have relied heavily on the compromise decree passed in 1959. learned Assistant Settlement Officer, who is an statutory authority, as well as learned Commissioner, who is revisonal authority, have found that the compromise decree was fraudulent and on that basis, the private respondents, who are members of Scheduled Tribes, were dispossessed from their land. The transfer of possession is against the provisions of Section 20 of the SPT Act. Learned Assistant Settlement Officer, exercising the power under Section 20(5) of the SPT Act, has restored possession of the private respondents. The revisional court has also affirmed the said order. The orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer and the Commissioner are based on due consideration of facts and materials on record and they have recorded reasons in support of their findings.

9. I find no error or illegality or any ground made out to interfere with the impugned order of the Commissioner.

10. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed