The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the statutory limitation period under Section 46(4-A) of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 for filing restoration applications.

ORDER :

I.A. No.2187 of 2022

This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 129 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Heard parties.

3. Having regard to the averments made in the application and submissions made on behalf of the parties, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeal within the period of limitation. As such, the delay of 129 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

4. I.A. No. 2187 of 2022 stands allowed.

L.P.A. No.222 of 2019

The instant appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 04.09.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.7313 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed by declining to interfere with the order dated 24.07.12 passed by respondent no. 2 allowing land Restoration Revision No. 50/04 filed by the respondents 6 to 8 whereby the order dated 07.04.04 passed by respondent no. 3 in R.A.N. Case No. 01/01 restoring the lands in question in favour of the petitioner, has been set aside and the order dated 03.10.94 passed by respondent no. 4 in land Restoration Case No. 14/93 whereby the claim of restoration of the lands in question in favour of the petitioner has been rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :-

It is the case of the writ petitioner that Land Restoration Case No. 14/1993 was initiated by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaribag on the basis of letter issued by the Circle Officer, Mandu bearing Letter No. 586 dated 6.6.1986 and vide order dated 03.10.1994 Land Restoration Case was dismissed by holding that the said authority could not figure out the date on which recorded tenants were dispossessed from the property and simultaneously also recorded that recorded tenants were dispossessed for more than 12 years.

It is the further case of the writ petitioner that the order dated 03.10.1994 passed in Land Restoration Case No. 14/1993 was challenged before the appellate authority in R.A.N. Case No. 1/2001 wherein the appellate authority recorded that the private respondents had placed their claim on illegal documents and the petitioner was dispossessed for a period less than 12 years and accordingly appeal was allowed.

The private respondents filed revision before the revisional authority being Land Restoration Revision No. 50/2004 which was disposed of vide order dated 24.07.2012. The revisional authority recorded that the private respondents herein were in possession of the property since 1934.

The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the order passed by the revisional authority dated 24.07.2012 in Restoration Revision No.50/2004, invoked the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No.7313 of 2012 taking the ground that the continuous Khatiyan prepared after vesting carries the name of the ancestors of the petitioner showing possession as also various documents filed by way of supplementary affidavit, have not been considered.

The private respondents appeared and took the ground that the restoration proceeding was initiated on the basis of a report of the Circle Officer contained in letter dated 06.06.1986 wherein it was observed that the recorded tenants were dispossessed for more than 20 years.

The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the fact about the filing of the restoration application during the statutory period of 12 years as stipulated under Section 46(4)-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, 1908), has dismissed the writ petition, against which the present intra-court appeal has been preferred.

3. Mr. M.K.Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner, has submitted that the learned Single