IMPORTANT POINT
The Deputy Commissioner has the authority to entertain appeals under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, and allegations of fraud and misrepresentation can justify such appeals, reinforcing the principle that courts will not interfere with factual determinations made by lower tribunals unless jurisdictional errors are present.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. Notice has validly been served upon the respondent no.4. Hence, service of the notice upon the respondent no.4 is sufficient.

3. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) to quash the order dated 12.04.2016 passed in S.A.R. Appeal No.52R 15/2014-15 passed by the respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi whereby and where under, the order passed by the S.A.R. Officer, Ranchi in S.A.R. Case No.306 of 2012-13; whereby the land, which is the subject matter of the appeal concerned, has been directed to be restored in favour of the pro-forma respondent of the appeal.

4. The brief fact of the case is that the respondent filed a petition under Section 71A of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 in the court of S.A.R. Officer, Ranchi being the respondent no.3 of this writ petition for restoration of the land measuring 2 katha of Mouza-Hehal, P.S.-Sukhdeonagar, Thana No.203, Khata No.80, plot no. 1517, Dist.-Ranchi alleging that the same has been occupied by the petitioner forcibly and the petitioner has been claiming that he is the raiyat and heir of the recorded tenant. The said case was registered and numbered as S.A.R. Case No. 306 of 2012-13. The petitioner appeared therein and contended that the grandfather of the writ petitioner who was the respondent in the said application under Section 71A of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act contended that the grandfather of the petitioner was the recorded tenant of the land in question in 1944-45 through sada hukumnama and constructed house thereon and the case was filed by the heirs of the recorded tenant after 60-65 years of occupation and possession. The S.A.R. Officer revalidated the property in question in favour of the petitioner-respondent at the rate of Rs.1,77,000/- per decimal under second proviso of Section 71A of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act vide order dated 07.10.2013. The respondent paid the total amount of Rs.5,86,000/- through demand draft to the respondent no. 4 of this writ petition which has been received by the respondent no.4. After a lapse of a year of time an appeal was filed by the State through S.A.R. Officer being the respondent no.3 which was registered as S.A.R. Appeal No.52R 15/2014-15. The writ petitioner appeared in the appeal and claimed that the appeal is barred by limitation. The petitioner contended that house existed before the promulgation of Schedule Area Regulation Act, 1969. The respondent no.2 after hearing the parties condoned the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the appeal and ordered for restoring the land of the pro-forma respondent of the appeal; as already indicated above, in this judgment.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and it is contended that the order passed by the appellate authority was illegal. Relying upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dinesh Ram vs. The State of Jharkhand in W.P.(C) No. 6487 of 2014 dated 19.02.2015, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the facts of that case when there was no allegation that there was collusion between the applicant-tribals and the petitioners nor any fraud was alleged to have been played and the power under Section 71 A was exercised by the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner ordered for filing the appeal against the order dated 30.08.2013 and when the private respondent have accepted part payment and were not aggrieved by the order, the coordinate Bench held that Deputy Commissioner has no authority to direct the circle officer to file appeal against the order passed by Special Officer in S.A.R. Case and allowed the writ petition and dismissed the S.A.R. appeal in that case.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next relied upon the judgment of a