Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 625 (JHR)

Birsai Oraon v. Tibra Kumhar

2001-09-04

GURUSHARAN SHARMA

body2001
JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. In Revisional Survey Khatian Mardan Kumhar was recorded tenant of the disputed land, which was auction sold in execution of a decree passed in Rent Suit No. 585 of 1933-34 and purchased by one Bitan Sahu. By registered sale deed dated 1.2.1971. plaintiff purchased it from Mardan Sahu. Mahadeo Sahu and I lira Sahu, all sons of Buan Sahu and got his name mutated in Register II. the tenants leader. maintained by State, vide Mutation Cast; No. 9 of 1971-72. 2. One Mahli Bhagat, son of Jagmain Kumhar posing himself as brother of recorded tenant and son of Khasru Kumhar died Tana Bhagat Case No. 10 of 1961-62 against the said Bitan Sahu before Circle Officer. Gumla, which was dismissed on 22.5.1965. mainly on the ground that neither recorded tenant was Tana Bhagat nor Hahli Bhagat was his legal representative. 3. Sohrai Bhagat, another son of Jag-main Kumhar and brother of late Mahli Bhagat filed a fresh case under Tana Bhagat Raiyats Agricultural Lands Restoration Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the plaintiffs family, which was registered as Case No. 1 of 1972-73 before Circle Officer, Gumla. Plaintiff filed his show cause station therein that neither Mardan Kumhar recorded tenant was the Tana Bhagat nor Shorai was his legal representative, but the said case was allowed without making proper enquiry as envisaged in Rule 4 of the Act Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyats Agricultural Lands Restoration Rules, 1948. The appeal preferred by plaintiff before Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. was also dismissed. 4. Plaintiff, therefore, filed Title Suit No. 6 of 1980 for declaration that order dated 4.8.1972, passed in Tana Bhagat Case No. 1 of 1972-73 as well as order dated 3.12.1989. passed in Tana Appeal No. 112 (P) - 15 of 1972-73 were illegal and for permanent injunction restraining defendants from taking possession of the lands mentioned in paragraph 1 of the plaint on the basis of aforesaid order which were ultra vires, illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction. 5. Defendant appeared In the suit and attended till final hearing of interim injunction matter and thereafter left pairvi and disappeared. Neither any written statement was filed by him nor he contested the suit. However the suit was dismissed ex-parte. 6. During pendency of" suit plaintiff alleged that an 5.1.1981 he was dispossessed by defendant from the suit lands. 5. Defendant appeared In the suit and attended till final hearing of interim injunction matter and thereafter left pairvi and disappeared. Neither any written statement was filed by him nor he contested the suit. However the suit was dismissed ex-parte. 6. During pendency of" suit plaintiff alleged that an 5.1.1981 he was dispossessed by defendant from the suit lands. While dismissing the suit trial Court held that Mardan Kumhar. the recorded tenant was a Tana Bhagat and orders passed by Circle Officer and Deputy commissioner were valid. 7. The plaintiff filed Title Appeal No. 57 of 1981 which was also dismissed by impugned judgment and decree dated 24.5.1985. It was observed that plaintiff failed to prove that recorded tenant was not a Tana Bhagat. In the order Ext. 4 the Circle Officer considered and dealt with all aspects of the matter in detail. There was no corroborative evidence to prove that respondent was not the legal representative of recorded tenant. 8. Admittedly in Revisional Survey Khatian Mardan Kumhar was recorded a tenant of the suit lands. Both the Courts below recorded concurrent findings of fact that he was a Tana Bhagat. Under 1947, Act Deputy Commissioner is empowered to restore lands of Tana Bhagats whose raiyati interest therein were sold in Courts auction during the period 1933 to 1947 and under Section 8 of the said Act jurisdiction of civil Court is barred. 9. Section 8 not only expressly bars jurisdiction of the civil Court but it has also specifically been clarified that order of Duputy Commissioner under the provisions of the siad Act is also final and cannot be questioned in any Court. It cant be said that the orders contained in Exhibits 4 and 7 were not the orders passed under the provisions of the said Act. 10. I. therefore, hold that Title Suit No. 6 of 1980 was barred under Section 8 of the Ranchi District Tana Bhagat Raiyats Agricultural Land Restoration Act, 1947 and the orders passed by Circle Officer and Deputy Commissioner. Ranchi as contained in Exhibits 4 and 7 are final. 11. There is no merit In this Second Appeal. It is. accordingly, dismissed but without cost. Lower Court records may be sent down. 12. Appeal dismissed.