A restoration claim under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act must comply with formal requirements and statutory timelines, and caste descriptions in land records are critical, with 'Lohar' not qualifying for Scheduled Tribe protections.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

Prayer:

1. The instant appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Appeal, is directed against order dated 3^rd April, 2018 passed in W.P.(C) No. 5724 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the writ petition was allowed and order dated 21.01.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ramgarh, by which the description of land from Khata No. 94 to Khata No. 77 was rectified, has been quashed and set aside; and it has been held that appellate order dated 15.10.2015 passed in Appeal Case No. 15/2011-12 is of no consequence as the same was not entertained by the appellate authority on the ground that the appeal against the order of restoration was dismissed vide order dated 14.12.2004 passed in Appeal Case No. 8 of 1997.

Brief facts of the case

2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading available on record, needs to be referred herein, which reads as under:

3. The mother of writ petitioner-respondent no. 1, Smt. Uma Sinha, wife of Late K.P. Sinha, purchased a piece of land measuring an area of 0.22 acres out of 1.15 acres falling under Khata No. 77, Plot No. 188 in Village Murram Kala, P.S. Ramgarh, the then District-Hazaribagh [Now Ramgarh] from Haricharan Mistri and Shivcharan Mistri, sons of recorded tenant Hardayal Karmali, on payment of consideration amount of Rs. 6500/- vide registered sale deed dated 20.04.1982, who came in peaceful possession thereof. The said land was mutated in the name of Smt. Uma Sinha vide Mutation Case No. 266/84-85 and accordingly rent receipt was issued.

4. On 19.01.1995, an application was filed by respondent no. 6, the appellant herein, before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh which was registered as Restoration Case No. 1/1995 for restoration of 55 decimals of land out of 1.15 acres falling under Mouza Muramkala Khata No. 94, Plot No. 188, which was alleged to be purchased by the father of the writ petitioner, namely, Dr. K.P. Sinha, on the ground that it was purchased in gross violation of the provisions of CNT Act. On being noticed, the father of the writ petitioner, namely, Dr. K.P. Sinha appeared and filed show cause stating that from the Khatian, it is evident that the recorded tenant Hardayal Karmali, Ghujwa Karmali and Shobhwa Karmali are "Lohar‟ by caste, which has been put under the Backward Class, as per law laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Nityanand Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar& Ors. [(1996) 3 SCC 576] . Accordingly, prayer has been made that as per Section 46(4A) of the CNT Act since the applicant who is seeking restoration of land is not a member of Scheduled Tribe, the application for restoration is liable to be dismissed. Further ground has been taken that the application is liable to be dismissed on the ground of mis-rejoinder and non-joinder of necessary party since the land in question was not purchased by Dr. K.P. Sinha.

5. Thereafter, the SDO, Ramgarh passed the order dated 26.02.1997 in Land Restoration Case No. 1/1995 for restoration of the land of village Murramkala falling under Khata No. 94, Plot No. 188 measuring 55 decimals out of 1.15 acres against Dr. K.P. Sinha recording the finding that merely because in Khatian i.e., the record of rights, the caste of the recorded tenant has been recorded as "Lohar‟ it cannot be accepted that the appellant falls under the Backward Caste Category.

6. Against order dated 26.02.1997 passed in Land Restoration Case No. 1/1995, Dr. K.P. Sinha preferre