JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Suresh Nand Tiwary, Advocate appearing for the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 4(a)(i), (ii) and 4(b). 3. Heard Ms. Pragati Prasad, counsel appearing for the respondent no.5. 4. Heard Mr. Satish Kumar, Associate Counsel to G.A. appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 5. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondent no.7. 6. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs : “A. That the petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction to quash the order dated 31.05.2010, as passed by the respondent no.1 in Ranchi Revenue Revision No. 08 of 2010 (whereby and whereunder the said Revision case has been dismissed in the stage of admission itself); B. For quashing of orders dated 11.01.2010 as passed by the respondent no.2 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 83 R 15 of 2008-09 (whereby appeal preferred by the respondent no.4 and others was erroneously allowed with order of restoration of possession of an area of 62 decimals of land i.e. beyond the land under proceeding, as owned and possessed by the Petitioner, transfer whereof stands validated in terms of orders dated 22.08.2000/05.07.2001, as passed in S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01, by the respondent no.3); C. For quashing of orders dated 30.05.2008 as passed by the respondent no.3 in S.A.R. Case No.99 of 2001-02 (whereby an order of restoration of possession of an area of unspecified 7.5 decimals of land out of the said 62 decimals of land has been ordered); and D. For quashing of orders dated 16.06.2006, as passed by the respondent no.2 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 138 R15 of 02-03/A.C. T.R. no. 22 R 15/03-04 (whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the respondent no.4 and others was allowed with remand of the S.A.R. case no.99 of 01-02, which was earlier rejected in terms of orders dated 07.11.2002, holding the same to be barred by law of Res-judicata).” 7. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the records of the S.A.R. Case No.1 of 99, records of S.A.R. Case No. 99 of 2001-02 and records of S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 were called for from the S.A.R. Officer, Ranchi and the same have been produced. 8. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the records of the S.A.R. Case No.1 of 99, records of S.A.R. Case No. 99 of 2001-02 and records of S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 were called for from the S.A.R. Officer, Ranchi and the same have been produced. 8. Counsel for the petitioner submits as under : (a) The father of the petitioner had taken settlement of 50 decimals of land pertaining to R.S. Plot Nos.1289, 1290 and 1293 at village Hinoo, P.S. Doranda (now Jagarnathpur) in the district of Ranchi in the year, 1945 from the then land lord. The recorded tenants in the year, 1941-42 had surrendered the land to the then landlord. (b) On the said property, the petitioner had constructed substantial structure including the boundary wall and the residential house and the property upon measurement was subsequently found to be total 62 decimals and is in possession of the petitioner and his family. (c) However, in the year, 2000-01 one S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 was filed by four persons namely, Kirta Oraon son of Late Mangra Oraon, Ramai Oraon son of Late Mangra Oraon, Koleha Oraon son of Late Dhura Oraon and Biswanath Kacchap son of Jagarnath Oraon. The said case was filed in connection with the property for plot nos. 1289, 1290 and 1293. This case was decided by final order dated 22.08.2000 and as per the 2nd proviso of Section 71A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, a direction was issued for payment of compensation amounting to Rs. 4,80,000/- for 62 decimal (40 khatas) @ Rs.12,000/- per khatha by bank draft to the applicants of the said case which, according to the petitioner, was paid to the said applicants by way of bank draft and the amount was duly credited in the respective accounts of the said applicants. (d) Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said order passed in S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 attained finality. (e) He submits that on 20.02.2002 another application being S.A.R. Case No. 99 of 2001-02 was filed by Koleha Oraon son of Late Dhura Oraon and Biswanath Oraon son of Late Jagarnath Oraon against Kamta Prasad as well as the petitioner. (e) He submits that on 20.02.2002 another application being S.A.R. Case No. 99 of 2001-02 was filed by Koleha Oraon son of Late Dhura Oraon and Biswanath Oraon son of Late Jagarnath Oraon against Kamta Prasad as well as the petitioner. He submits that the applicants in Case No. 49 of 2000-01 as well as in Case No. 99 of 2001-02 claimed themselves to be the descendants of their common ancestors namely, Guila Oraon who was the recorded tenant of the property. (f) He further submits that the subsequent application being Case No. 99 of 2001-02 was filed in connection with Plot Nos. 1247, 1248, 1249, 1250 and 1290 and Plot No. 1290 was common in both the applications. He submits that the petitioner is concerned only with a portion of Plot No. 1290 i.e. total area of 45 decimals and so far as the rest of the portion is concerned, he has got no concern with those properties including the property in plot No. 1247, 1248, 1249 and 1250. He submits that the petitioner contested the case being S.A.R. Case No. 99 of 2001-02 and the said case was decided vide order dated 07.11.2002 wherein the plea of res-judicata was considered and the application for restoration so far as the claim of the applicant in S.A.R. Case No.99 of 2001-02 with regard to Plot No. 1290 is concerned, the same was rejected against which an appeal was preferred which was numbered as S.A.R. Appeal No. 138 R-15/02-03 and the same was allowed by way of remand for passing fresh order in terms of the order of remand which is dated 16.06.2006. (g) Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the order dated 16.06.2006 passed in S.A.R. Appeal No. 138 R-15/02-03 is also under challenge in this writ petition in view of the fact that there are certain observations and directions in the said order with which the petitioner is aggrieved particularly in connection with the proceedings being S.A.R. Case No.49 of 2000-01. He further submits that the plea of res-judicata was also not considered by the appellate authority while passing the order dated 16.06.2006 and the orders passed in certain mutation proceedings have been taken into consideration while passing the said order. He further submits that the plea of res-judicata was also not considered by the appellate authority while passing the order dated 16.06.2006 and the orders passed in certain mutation proceedings have been taken into consideration while passing the said order. (h) He submits that the order passed by S.A.R. Court dated 07.11.2002 in S.A.R. Case No. 99 of 2001-02 was rightly passed by the S.A.R. Officer and it required no interference. (i) He further submits that pursuant to the order of remand dated 16.06.2006, a fresh order dated 30.05.2008 was passed by the S.A.R. Officer in S.A.R. Case No. 99 of 2001-02, wherein the said authority again entered into the legality and validity of the proceedings in connection with S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 and recorded a finding that the compensation in S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 was received by only two applicants of the said case i.e. Kirta Oraon and Ramai Oraon but the same was not received by the applicants of S.A.R. Case No. 99 of 2000-01 and therefore, the S.A.R. Officer passed an order for restoration of unspecified 7.5 decimals of land. The counsel submits that there is no basis for passing the order in connection with 7.5 decimals of land and the said order is cryptic and is against the provision of law. (j) Counsel for the petitioner also submits that against this order dated 30.05.2008 passed in S.A.R. Case No. 99 of 2001-02, the applicant of S.A.R. Case No. 99 of 2001-02 filed appeal before the appellate authority which was decided vide order dated 11.01.2010 and the appellate authority totally ignored the order in S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 and passed an order of restoration inter-alia in connection with the property of the petitioner which was already involved in S.A.R. Case no. 49 of 2000-2001. (k) Further, counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order passed by the appellate authority as contained in S.A.R. Appeal No. 83R15/2008-09, a revision was filed being S.A.R. Revision No. 8 of 2010 which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 31.05.2010. 49 of 2000-2001. (k) Further, counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order passed by the appellate authority as contained in S.A.R. Appeal No. 83R15/2008-09, a revision was filed being S.A.R. Revision No. 8 of 2010 which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 31.05.2010. (l) By referring to the impugned order dated 31.05.2010, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional authority has considered the orders passed in connection with opening of Jamabandi and also held that the order for restoration of land was passed earlier in Case No. 1 of 99 in connection with the land involved in this case and thereafter, again fraudulently in a subsequent case being S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01, order from the Court was obtained and the said authority held that order passed in Case No. 49 of 2000-01 was itself hit by the principles of res-judicata as the order of restoration was passed earlier in Case No. 1 of 1999. In the said order it has been recorded that the land and parties were the same in Case No. 1 of 1999 and subsequent Case No. 49 of 2000-01 and on this basis, the said authority held that it was a clear case of misuse of the provisions of proviso to Section 71A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act,1908 for alienation of tribal land. On the basis of such finding, the revisional authority confirmed the order dated 11.01.2010 passed in S.A.R. Appeal No. 83R15/ 2008-09. On the basis of such finding, the revisional authority confirmed the order dated 11.01.2010 passed in S.A.R. Appeal No. 83R15/ 2008-09. (m) Counsel for the petitioner by referring to records of S.A.R. Case No. 1 of 1999 which has been called for by this Court has submitted that from the perusal of the said record, it appears that the S.A.R. Case No. 1 of 1999 was filed by Ramai Oraon son of Late Mangra Oraon, Kirta Oraon son of Late Mangra Oraon and Somari Kachap wife of Jagarnath Oraon in connection with Plot No. 1289 area 7 decimal, Plot No. 1290 area 45 decimal and Plot No. 1293 area 10 decimal i.e. total area 62 decimal and the said case, as per the records was filed against one Raj kishore Sahu and he submits that from the records of the case it appears that the petitioner, whose name is Rajesh Kumar Sahu, was never the party in the said case and accordingly, any order passed in the case being S.A.R. Case No. 1 of 1999 cannot have any bearing in subsequent case of S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 and the same cannot be said to be barred by res-judicata. (n) He further submits that on account of the aforesaid facts, the order dated 31.05.2010 is apparently perverse and the same is fit to be set-aside. He submits that in proceedings of S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01, all the four persons were parties i.e. Kirta Oraon, Ramai Oraon, Koleha Oraon and Bishwanath Kachhap and accordingly, the subsequent case bearing Case No. 99 of 2001-02 in which only two persons namely, Koleha Oraon and Bishwanath Kachhap were parties, is hit by res-judicata. (o) Counsel for the petitioner further submits that if there was any illegality or fraud as alleged by the respondents in connection with S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01, then the remedy for the private respondent was to file appropriate proceedings in connection with the same case and the order passed in the S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 could not be assailed or disturbed in another proceeding i.e. being S.A.R. Case No. 99 of 2001-02. He submits that the order passed in S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 having attained finality, the same was binding on the parties and accordingly, a subsequent proceeding in connection with the property which was involved in S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 is barred by res-judicata. (p) Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is concerned only in connection with the property of the petitioner namely Rajesh Kumar Sahu and he has got nothing to do so far as the property in connection with Kamta Prasad or others is concerned. 9. Counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, submits that the impugned order has been rightly passed and he submits that in S.A.R. Case No. 1 of 1999, the case was filed against Raj Kishore Sahu and furthur submits that Raj Kishore Sahu and Rajesh Kumar Sahu are the one and the same person. Accordingly, he submits that the order passed in S.A.R. Case No. 1 of 1999 was binding on the petitioner. He submits that in view of this, the subsequent proceeding in Case No. 49 of 2000-01 was hit by res-judicata and accordingly, the order passed in Case No. 49 of 2000-01 has been rightly considered by the revisional authority which does not require any interference by this Court. 10. However, during the course of argument the counsel for the legal heirs of original respondent no. 4 could not show any material from the records of all the three cases so as to demonstrate that the petitioner and Raj Kishore Sahu are one and the same person. He submits that the story regarding possession of property as narrated by Raj Kishore Sahu was same as that of the narration made by the petitioner and therefore, on this ground, it should be held that the petitioner and Raj Kishore Sahu are one and the same person. 11. Counsel for the legal heirs of original respondent no. 4 further submits that the order passed in S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 was obtained by fraud and fraud was committed in that proceeding. So far as Kirta Oraon and Ramai Oraon are concerned, they have taken compensation in the said proceeding but the compensation was not taken by Koleha Oraon and Bishwanath Kachhap. 4 further submits that the order passed in S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 was obtained by fraud and fraud was committed in that proceeding. So far as Kirta Oraon and Ramai Oraon are concerned, they have taken compensation in the said proceeding but the compensation was not taken by Koleha Oraon and Bishwanath Kachhap. He submits that the petitioner had fraudulently opened bank account in the name of Koleha Oraon and Bishwanath Kachhap and this is apparent from the deposition of the petitioner himself and therefore, it stands established that Koleha Oraon and Bishwanath Kachhap were not actually persons who had received the compensation. 12. Counsel for the respondents also submits that in view of the fraud committed by the petitioner, the impugned orders have been rightly passed which requires no interference. 13. Counsel for the other private respondent adopted the arguments advanced on behalf of the legal heirs of original respondent no. 4. 14. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, on the other hand, submits that the impugned order has been rightly passed and he submits that the same requires no interference. He submits that the petitioner has lost in all the three courts below and there is no perversity in the impugned orders and it does not require any interference. 15. After considering the materials on record and after considering the lower court records which have been received, this Court finds that restoration case being S.A.R. Case No. 1 of 1999 was filed by Koleha Oraon, Ramai Oraon, Kirta Oraon and Somari Kachap wife of Jagarnath Oraon. The same was filed in connection with 62 decimals of land including that in Plot No. 1289 area 7 decimal, 1290 area 45 decimals and 1293 area 10 decimals. This case was filed against Raj Kishore Sahu and the name of the petitioner does not find place in this application. The order of restoration was passed in this particular case vide order dated 01.03.2000. 16. Subsequently, Kirta Oraon, Ramai Oraon, Koleha Oraon and Bishwanath Kachhap son of Jagarnath Oraon filed application for restoration which was numbered as Restoration Case No. 49 of 2000-01 in relation to Plot No. 1289 area 05 decimals, Plot No. 1290 area 35 decimals, Plot No. 1293 area 10 decimals total being 50 decimals of land and the said case was filed against Rajesh Kumar, the petitioner herein. In the said case, the final order was passed on 22.08.2000 and there was an order of payment of compensation of Rs. 4,80,000/-. As per the records of the case, the compensation was assessed for total area of 62 decimals, (i.e. 40 acres @ 12,000/- per acre) The order passed in S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 attained finality and the petitioner is in possession of the said land. 17. This Court is of the considered view that the order passed in S.A.R. Case No.1 of 1999 which was filed against Raj Kishore Sahu cannot be said to barred by res-judicata in S.A.R. Case No.49 of 2000-01 as there is nothing on record to suggest that Raj Kishore Sahu and Rajesh Kumar son of Basudeo Sahu are one and the same person and accordingly the respondents in the two proceedings were different. 18. The contention of the private respondents that Raj Kishore Sahu and Rajesh Kumar are one and the same person as both of them had taken same stand in S.A.R. Case No. 1 of 1999 and S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 is hereby rejected and this Court is of the considered view that merely because same stand has been taken before the S.A.R. Officer by the two persons, the same is not enough to establish that Rajesh Kumar and Raj Kishore Sahu are one and the same person. 19. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Commissioner in the impugned order that the subsequent proceeding being S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 was barred by res-judicata in view of the order passed in S.A.R. Case No. 1 of 1999 is perverse which requires interference by this Court. 20. This Court further finds that in S.A.R. Case No. 99 of 2001-02, the case was filed by Koleha Oraon and Biswanath Kacchap in connection with Plot Nos. 1247, 1248, 1249, 1250 and 1290 area 31 decimal, 22 decimal, 92 decimal, 17 decimal and 2 acres and 40 decimal total area being 4.02 acres and the case was filed against Kamta Prasad and Rajesh Kumar Sahu son of Late Basudeo Sahu. This Court finds that the property involved in the application being S.A.R. Case No. 99 of 2001-02 included the property involved in S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 so far the claim of the petitioner in plot no. 1290 is concerned. This Court finds that the property involved in the application being S.A.R. Case No. 99 of 2001-02 included the property involved in S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 so far the claim of the petitioner in plot no. 1290 is concerned. In S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01, all the four persons were parties i.e. Kirta Oraon, Ramai Oraon, Koleha Oraon and Bishwanath Kachhap and accordingly, the subsequent case bearing Case No. 99 of 2001-02, in which only two persons namely, Koleha Oraon and Bishwanath Kachhap were parties, is hit by res-judicata so far as the petitioner and his property in Plot No. 1290 is concerned. 21. So far as area of 62 decimals of part of land in plot no 1289, 1290 and 1293 which was claimed by the petitioner, as per the records of S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01, the applicants of the said case had received/ were entitled for the compensation of total of 62 decimals of land from the petitioner. This Court further finds that it is not the case of the private respondents herein that out of four persons who had filed application in S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01, none of the persons had received compensation, but it is their specific case, that Koleha Oraon and Biswanath Kacchap had not received the compensation and other two persons had received the compensation. 22. This Court further finds that if the private respondent herein had any grievance in connection with the proceedings being S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 including the allegation regarding fraud etc., the same ought to have been raised in a proceeding arising out of S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01. This Court finds that the private respondent herein instead of challenging the order passed in S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 by way of appeal or filing any petition in the same case, had tried to challenge this order in subsequent proceeding being S.A.R. Case No. 99 of 2001-02, which as per the considered view of this Court, is not permissible in law. 23. This Court is of the considered view that the order passed in S.A.R. Case No.49 of 2000-01 could have been challenged by the private party in a proceeding arising out of the said case and could not have been assailed by the private party in subsequent another fresh proceeding. 23. This Court is of the considered view that the order passed in S.A.R. Case No.49 of 2000-01 could have been challenged by the private party in a proceeding arising out of the said case and could not have been assailed by the private party in subsequent another fresh proceeding. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the pronouncements of the authorities in connection with order passed in S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 in subsequent proceeding in S.A.R. Case No. 99 of 2001-02 regarding its legality and validity was totally uncalled for and the authorities have failed to consider that the order passed in S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 was binding on the parties even in the subsequent fresh proceeding in S.A.R. Case No. 99 of 2001-02. 24. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that all the impugned orders being order dated 31.05.2010 passed in Ranchi Revenue Revision No.08 of 2010, order dated 11.01.2010 passed by The Additional Collector, Ranchi in S.A.R. Appeal No. 83 R 15 of 2008-09, order dated 30.05.2008 passed in S.A.R. Case No.99 of 2001-02 and order dated 16.06.2006 passed in S.A.R. Appeal No. 138 R 15 of 02-03/A.C. T.R. No. 22 R 15/03-04, so far as they relate to the land claimed by the petitioner, are perverse and are fit to be set-aside. As per the case of the petitioner himself, the petitioner is concerned only with a portion of Plot No. 1290 i.e. total area of 45 decimals and so far as the rest of the portion of this plot is concerned, he has got no concern including the property in plot No. 1247, 1248, 1249 and 1250. 25. This Court further observes that if any fraud has been committed in S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 by any of the parties, it is certainly open to the private party to take steps in accordance with law in connection with the said order passed in S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 and this order will not come in the way of private party to take appropriate steps. 26. This writ petition is hereby allowed with the aforesaid observations. 27. Let the records of the S.A.R. Case No.1 of 99, records of S.A.R. Case No. 99 of 2001-02 and records of S.A.R. Case No. 49 of 2000-01 be sent back to the Court concerned.