A compromise decree obtained in violation of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act is deemed fraudulent and cannot be relied upon for land restoration claims.

JUDGMENT :

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

This Intra Court Appeal is directed against the judgment passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2276 of 2017, whereby the prayer of the petitioners-appellants has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants had preferred the writ application for the following reliefs:

“i.) For quashing of the order dated 16.02.2017 (Annexure 12), passed by the Learned Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division Hazaribagh (Respondent No.2), in Land Restoration Revision No.62/2013, whereby & where under the revision preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed and the order dated 02.08.2013, passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh (Respondent No.3), in S.A.R. Appeal No.22/2013 and order dated 21.06.2013, passed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ramgarh, S.A.R Case No. 14/2012-13 were upheld:

ii.) For quashing of the order dated 02.08.2013 (Annexure-09), passed by the Learned Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, in restoration Appeal Case No.22/2013, whereby and where under the appeal preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed in cryptic manner, without considering the facts & circumstances of the case:

iii.) For quashing of the order dated 21.06.2013 (Annexure-07), passed by the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ramgarh in Land Restoration Case No.14/2012-13, whereby & where under the land of the petitioners situated in Mouja Kaitha, Thana No.85, P.S.: Ramgarh, Khata No.19, Plot No.773, Area 1 acre restored in favour of Ramjatan Munda (Respondent No.5), U/s 46 & 4A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, without considering the show-cause filed by the petitioners and on erroneous consideration saying that the order passed in Title Suit by the Civil Court having no value i.e., the erroneous consideration of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, which is not tenable in the eye of law:"

3. To decide the issue involved in this appeal, some facts are necessary to be referred:

The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings of the appellants made in the writ petition is that the landed property in pertaining to Plot No.773, measuring an area of 2.22 acres under Khata No. 19, Village-Kaitha, Police Station and Thana- Ramgarh was recorded in the names of Jaylal Munda & Ghujja Munda and both are sons of Bhukhlal Munda during the last survey & settlement operation.

The said Ghujija Munda approached Hitlal Mahto for some money and for that in order to create security, a piece of land comprising an area of 1.00 acres towards East of Plot No.773 under Khata No.19 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘Suit Land’) as has been indicted in the Title Suit No.926 of 1964 has been given in possession of the appellants, in consequence thereupon, a title suit was filed being Title Suit No. 926 of 1964 by the recorded tenant on 30.11.1964 for seeking the relief of declaration of right over the suit land, the defendants/the appellants herein be evicted from the suit land. The said title suit has culminated into a compromise decree vide decree signed on 27.01.1965.

Thereafter, the said Hitlal Mahto applied for mutation before the revenue authority which was registered as Mutation Case No.321 of 1965-66 which was allowed and accordingly the name of the appellants has been entered in the rent register i.e., Register-II of Ramgarh Anchal, District Hazaribagh (now, District-Ramgarh) and since then the appellants are making payment of rent in token thereof and the rent receipts are being issued.

After lapse of substantial period, an application was filed by the respondent No.6 on 23.08.2012 under the provision of Section 46 (4-A) of the C.N.T. Act, 1908 which was registered as Land Restoration Case No.14 of 2012-13. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms had issued notice upon the appellants, who on its service, appeared and filed reply rebutting the claim of the respondent No.6 inter alia on the ground that the restoration application has been filed beyond the period of limitation and the possession has been confirmed by way of d