The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of tribal land rights under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and the necessity of following due process before vesting land upon the landlord.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 06.04.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.135 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the prayer for quashing of the order dated 11.07.1996 passed by the Special Officer Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi in S.A.R. Case No.243 of 1990-91 whereby restoration of an area of 44 Katthas of land appertaining to part of R.S. Plot No. 191, under Khata No. 34 of Village Hehal, P.S. No. 203 Ranchi, Police Station Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi has been ordered to be restored to the private respondents 4 to 8, as also quashing of order dated 12.09.1997 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in S.A.R. Appeal No. 47 R 15/1996-97/DCTR 314 R 15 of 1996- 97 and order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the respondent no. 1 in Ranchi Revenue Revision No. 323 of 1997, has been rejected while dismissing the writ petition.

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 :-

The property involved in this case was originally recorded in the name of Most. Sukro wife of late Mangru Oraon being the sole family successor of the deceased Mangru Oraon. The said recorded tenant passed away issueless and after her death the said property remained uncultivated/abandoned and as such under the provisions of section 23 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 right of raiyati interest devolved upon the landlord of the village. Accordingly, the landlord resumed the said property and entered into possession and a settlement was made by Sada Document with one Permeshwar Misir on 23.12.1942.

3. Permeshwar Misir remained in possession of that property and paid land revenue to the landlord and this property was also mentioned in the return filed by the landlord on vesting of the estate as per the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.

4. Permeshwar Misir had made substantial construction on the land in the year 1946-47 and he executed an agreement in favour of the original writ petitioner for transfer of an area of 44 Kattas of land on 04.01.1966 and put the original writ petitioner in possession of the said land as per the provision of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

5. The original writ petitioner by virtue of said agreement and in exercise of his possession has established an industrial unit on the said property. The value of the constructed property according to the petitioners is more than Rs. One Crore. Thereafter, the property was transferred to the original writ petitioner by way of two registered sale deeds of the year 1984 and 1988 by the said Permeshwar Misir.

6. An S.A.R. Case No. 243 of 1991 was initiated by the Special Officer S.A.R., Ranchi under section 71A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 on an application filed by the private respondents. According to the petitioners the private respondents are no way related to the recorded tenant.

7. The original writ petitioner filed number of documents before the Special Officer, Ranchi which have been mentioned in the order passed by the S.A.R. Officer, Ranchi which included the documents relating to settlement in favour of the Permeshwar Misir by the Zamindar and rent receipt issued by the Zamindar. The agreement was also filed before the said authority. However, the Special Officer, Ranchi rejected the show-cause filed by the original writ petitioner and allowed the application under the provision of Section 71 A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 for restoration of the said land to the private respondents herein.

8. Against the order of restoration of land the original writ petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi being S.A.R. Appeal No. 47 R 15/1996-97/DCTR 314 R 15 of 1996- 97 which was rejected vide order dated 12.09.1997 and subsequently the revision petition was filed before the revisional authority which was