The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority to pass speaking orders and consider all materials available in the records before making a decision.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. R.S.P. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner alongwith Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate.

2. Ms. Archana Kumari, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the State.

3. Nobody is appearing on behalf of the private respondent in spite of service of notice.

4. The records of the case reveal that on 30.10.2015, an order was passed that in spite of service of dasti summons, the Respondent No.5 failed to appear in the present proceeding. However, with a view to give one more chance, the matter was adjourned for four weeks. Respondent No.5 has not entered appearance by filing Vakalatnama.

5. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

(a) For issuance of an appropriate Writ/order/direction and/or a writ in the nature of certiorari to set-aside/quash the order dated 31-07-2009 (ANNEXURE-4, Page No.32-34 to the writ petition) passed by learned Additional Collector, Ranchi (Respondent No.3) in S.A.R. Appeal No.- 108 R 15/08-09 whereby and whereunder the said Appellate Authority had set-aside the order dated 21-06-2008 passed by the learned Land Reform Deputy Collector, sadar Ranchi (Respondent No.4) in S.A.R. Case No. 06/05-06 by which the said learned Court had ordered the petitioner and another either to purchase the land equivalent to the land of Respondent No.5 and hand-over the same to him or to pay the price of the land of Respondent No.5 at the rate of Rupees 5903/- per decimal of land through demand draft as compensation otherwise the Respondent No.5 would be put in possession over the land in question by dispossessing the petitioner and another and also, to quash/set-aside the order dated 09-03-2010 passed in S.A.R.. Revision Case No. 86/2009 (ANNEXURE-5, Page-35-36) by the learned Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi (Respondent No.2) whereby and whereunder the said Revisional Authority has rejected the said S.A.R. Revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31-07-2009 and ordered to restore the land in question in favour of the Respondent No.5.”

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the private respondent had filed an application for restoration of the property involved in the present case in the year 2005 which was numbered as S.A.R. Case No. 06 of 2005-06 under Section 71-A of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. He submitted that after hearing the parties, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector (L.R.D.C.) passed final order dated 21.06.2008 taking into consideration the materials including the sale deed, rent receipts and licenses relating to business and other documents and held that the present petitioner was in possession of the property of house and business over the property for more than 30 years and held that the application of restoration of land was barred by limitation. He submitted that in spite of holding that the application is barred by limitation, a sympathetic approach was taken by the SAR Officer directing the present petitioner to give equivalent land to the private respondent or to deposit an amount of Rs. 5903/- per decimal through demand draft. The learned counsel submitted that pursuant to the said order, the petitioner duly deposited an amount of Rs. 29,515/- as contained in Annexure-3. He further submitted that against the order passed in SAR Case, the private respondent filed appeal which was decided vide order dated 31.07.2009 (Annexure-4). The appeal was allowed on the ground that the land was transferred on the basis of Sada Patta as back as in the year 1968-70, but the private respondent had filed one Banda Purcha which reflected that the land did not have any construction over it and also recorded that some construction was done during the pendency of the case and ultimately vide order dated 31.07.2009, the appeal was allowed by holding that the order of Land Reforms Deputy Collector was against the provisions of Section 71-A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted