The court emphasized the principle that restoration applications barred by res-judicata and limitation cannot be entertained, and that challenging permissions granted after a long lapse of time is impermissible.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.09.2012 passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi- respondent no.3 in SAR Appeal Case No.55 R 15/2008-09, whereby the order dated 28.06.2008 (wrongly typed as 26.06.2008) passed by the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi- respondent no.4 in SAR Case No.40/2007-08 was set aside. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 06.09.2021 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi- respondent no.2 in SAR Revision No.130/2021, whereby the order dated 12.09.2012 passed by the respondent no.3 has been confirmed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land appertaining to Khata No. 62, plot no. 1608, measuring an area of 2.30 acres, village Husir, is recorded in the name of Juthan Oraon. The petitioner filed SAR Case No.40 of 2007-08 against Shibnath Lohar (father of respondent nos.5 and 6), Chhotan Lohar (father of respondent no.7 and husband of the respondent no.8) and others for restoration of several plots of Khata no.62, measuring total area of 4.71 acres. The respondent No.4 vide order dated 28.6.2008 restored the land in question in favour of the petitioner, directing the Circle Officer, Kanke, Ranchi to ensure handing over the possession of the land in his favour. Shivnath Lohar and Chhotan Lohar filed an appeal being SAR Appeal Case No.55 R 15 of 2008-09 before the respondent no.3, challenging the order of restoration of the land to the extent of an area measuring 1.15 acres, appertaining to Khata no.62, plot no.1608, which was allowed vide order dated 12.09.2012, setting aside the order dated 28.6.2008 passed by the respondent no.4 with respect to the aforesaid land. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a revision before the respondent No.2 being SAR Revision No.130/2012, which was rejected vide order dated 6.9.2021.

3. It is further submitted that in the said appeal, the private respondents for the first time produced a copy of the permission granted under Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act,1908 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi vide order dated 22.10.1964 passed in Misc. Case no.112 R. 8 II of 1963-64. It appears from the order sheets of the said case that one Sibua Oraon had applied before the Rent Suit Deputy Collector, Ranchi for grant of permission to sell his land appertaining to plot no.168, Khata no.62, measuring an area of 1.15 acres of village Husir to Shibnath Lohar and Chotan Lohar showing their caste “Lohar” as "Adivasi" of the same village, which was incorrect, as the caste "Lohar" belongs to backward class category, whereas the caste "Lohra" belongs to schedule tribe category and as such, it appears that by giving wrong description of caste, the application for permission was made, which was absolutely illegal and consequently, the permission granted was itself illegal. The respondent authorities have failed to take into consideration that the private respondents are "Lohar" by caste which belongs to backward class category. As such, the permission granted as well as sale deed dated 22.10.1965 executed in favour of the ancestors of the private respondents did not confer any right, title and possession of the said land in their favour. The alleged permission was granted with respect to Plot No.168, whereas the present dispute relates to Plot No.1608 and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any valid permission granted under Section 46 of the Act, 1908.

4. It is also submitted that the previously restoration cases filed by Kaliya Oraon as well as Kaila Oraon and others against Shibnath Lohar and others have no legal sanctity in view of the fact that the said persons are not the legal heirs of the recorded tenant-Juthan Oraon as per genealogical table provided by the petitioner in the courts below.

5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State respondents submits that the petitioner has raised disputed question of fact which cannot b