The main legal point established in the judgment is that the period of limitation for restoration of lands should be counted from the date of dispossession, and the power of review is restricted to specific grounds as per the legal position.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. No.1892 of 2022

Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, assisted by Ms. Rukmini Kumari, learned counsel, based upon the office note that the review petition is not barred by limitation, intends not to press the instant interlocutory application.

2. Accordingly, the instant interlocutory application is dismissed as not pressed.

Civil Review No.10 of 2022

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has sought for leave of this Court to make necessary correction in the cause title by inserting the provision of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Let necessary correction be made in the provision of law in course of the day.

5. The instant review is against the order dated 20.09.2021 passed by Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.753 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the order/judgment dated 10.04.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2390 of 2003, whereby and whereunder, the writ petition has been allowed by setting aside the revisional order dated 12.11.2001 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Singhbhum East, in Revision Appeal No. 461 of 1995, has been declined to be interfered with.

6. The review has been filed as per the ground stipulated in the review petition which are being referred hereunder as :-

(i) For that the present judgment is bad in law and on facts.

(ii) For that the main points regarding the T.A.Misc.Case No.13 of 1943-44 is not a genuine proceeding between the genuine parties.

(iii) For that the original order of the said case has never been brought on record and the petitioners are not aware about that case T.A.Misc Case No.13 of 1943-44.

(iv) For that no original documents of deed of surrendered 1948 has been brought on record and the petitioners are not aware about the T.A.Misc.Case No.13 of 1943-44.

(v) For that the person between whom T.A.Misc.Case No.13 of 1943-44 was contested does not belongs to genealogical table of these petitioners.

(vi) For that Karan Singh is not recorded tenant of the land in questions and in the Revisional Survey 1937 name of Karan Singh is not appearing in respect of land in questions.

(vii) For that the Bhunda Bhumij died on 13.4.1940 then how he executed the deed of surrender.

(viii) For that there is a report of C.0.that the land in question under the possession of Telco since 18-19 years.

(ix) For that rent receipt for the period 1982-83 was made available that shows that any proceeding before any authority was not in knowledge of this petitioner.

(x) For that in absence of original documents about T.A.Misc.Case No.13 of 1943-44 and deed of surrender 1948 would have been considered as forged and fabricated documents.

(xi) For that limitation period may be considered after 1983 nor from 1944 or 1948. In this regard there is a report of competent authority who is Circle Officer.

(xii) For that there is no documents of delivery of possession in 1948.

(xiii) For that there is no proof that before 1982 any kind of infrastructure either by the Tisco or Telco.

(xiv) For that in absence of registered document the order of original authority and Appellate Authority are on assumption and presumption.

7. Before going into the fact that as to whether it is a case for review of the order/judgment dated 20.09.2021 passed in L.P.A. No.753 of 2018, necessary facts needs to be referred herein which reads hereunder as :-

The issue pertains to claim over the property pertaining to R.S. Plot nos. 5563, 5588, 5589, 5590, 5591, 5592, 5598, 5599, 5560 and 5569 of Khata No. 6, Mauza Jojobera, Thana No. 1196 and R.S. Plot No. 5661, 5662, 5663, 5664 and 5665 of Khata No. 6, Mauza Jojobera, Thana No. 1196 belonging to the District Singhbhum, East.

8. The issue crept up by filing two separate applications by the private respondents for restoration of aforesaid lands under Section 71-A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1908’) registered as R.P. Case No. 06 of 1983-84 and R.P. Case N