JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Shashank Shekhar, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.(C). No. 3282 of 2002. 2. Heard Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.4992 of 2002. 3. Heard Mr. Srijit Choudhary, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.5 in both the writ petitions. 4. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C). No.3282 of 2002 are private respondents in W.P.(C). No.4992 of 2002 and the writ petitioner in W.P.(C). No.4992 of 2002 is private respondent in W.P.(C). No. 3282 of 2002. 5. Both these writ petitions arise out of a common proceeding and therefore they were tagged and have been heard together. 6. Counsel for the parties submit that all the parties are represented here through their counsels. 7. Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.3282 of 2002 submits that one Mahendra Kachhap filed an application for restoration of land against Indrajeet Gupta before the Special Officer, S.A.R. Court Ranchi on 15.06.1982, the said application filed by Mahendra Kachhap was allowed by the S.A.R. court vide order dated 23.08.1995 in S.A.R. Case No.77 of 89-90 and the order was passed only in relation to 32 decimals of land in Khata No. 83, Plot No.355 Area 32 decimals in Village Tupudana Namkom circle Ranchi. The petitioners were not aware of the said proceeding and the petitioner being the descendants of the recorded tenant filed an appeal before the appellate authority which was numbered as S.A.R. Appeal No.502 (R) 15 of 96-97. Said Indrajeet Gupta also filed appeal against the order of S.A.R. Officer in S.A.R. Case No.77 of 1989-90 and both the appeals were tagged and heard together by the appellate authority and disposed of vide common order dated 26.09.1998. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by stating that the petitioner did not file any intervention before the S.A.R. Officer and accordingly the petitioner was not a party before the original authority, therefore, the appeal was not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner. Counsel submits that before the original authority in the order dated 23.08.1995, there is no deliberation as to how the applicant namely Mahendra Kachhap claimed the property and said Mahendra Kachhap before the appellate authority tried to justify his claim over the property. Counsel submits that before the original authority in the order dated 23.08.1995, there is no deliberation as to how the applicant namely Mahendra Kachhap claimed the property and said Mahendra Kachhap before the appellate authority tried to justify his claim over the property. Against order of the appellate authority, both Indrajeet Gupta as well as the petitioner filed revision, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 03.02.2002. He submits that although in the order passed by the revisional authority, the case number of S.A.R. Revision No.143 of 1998 has been mentioned at the top but in the very first paragraph, it has been mentioned that a revision has been filed also by Indrajeet Gupta and therefore he submits that both revision filed by the petitioner as well as Indrajeet Gupta were dismissed vide the impugned order passed in S.A.R. Revision No.143 of 1998. He submits that even this authority dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioners were neither party before the original court nor they had filed any intervention application and therefore the revision at their instances was not maintainable. He submits that from the perusal of the application filed by Mahendra Kachhap before the S.A.R. court, it appears that he has declared his caste as ‘Munda’ and as per the record of rights the property is in the name of ‘Oraon’ and ‘Oraon’ and ‘Munda’ are two different tribes. He submits that the petitioner had no knowledge about the filing of application for restoration of land by Mahendra Kachhap and therefore there was no occasion for the petitioner to file any intervention application before the S.A.R. court. As soon as the petitioner came to know about the order passed by the S.A.R. Court, the petitioner filed his appeal and also the revision and both the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority have failed to consider that the original Court has not recorded any finding as to how Mahendra Kachhap has claimed the property involved in this case. He submits that the S.A.R. Court ought to have examined the claim of Mahendra Kachhap also before passing any order for restoration, as to whether Mahendra Kachhap being the applicant has any right, title and interest in connection with the property involved in this case. 8. He submits that the S.A.R. Court ought to have examined the claim of Mahendra Kachhap also before passing any order for restoration, as to whether Mahendra Kachhap being the applicant has any right, title and interest in connection with the property involved in this case. 8. The petitioner has referred to the judgment reported in (1988) PLJR 888 para – 13 which reads as follows: “13. The other objection raised by the petitioner that he was not made party in the proceeding is also a valid objection. The petitioner was recorded tenant of the land in question on the date on which application for restoration under section 71 A of the Act was made. This fact was brought to the notice of respondent no.4 by respondent no.6 but despite this, the petitioner was not made a party. The entire proceeding continued in his absence and an order was passed adversely affecting his interest. The order (Annexures 5 to 8) and therefore bad also on the ground that they have been passed in clear breach of the principles of natural justice.” 9. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(C). No.4992 of 2002 submits that from the perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that the petitioner namely Indrajeet Gupta had filed his show-cause reply and had also filed certain documents but on certain dates on account of their non-appearance, the petitioner could not lead evidence and the S.A.R. Court passed the order in haste without giving sufficient opportunity to Indrajeet Gupta to lead evidence, although there was sufficient material with Indrajeet Gupta and the documents were also filed before the S.A.R. court but the order passed by the S.A.R. Court was an ex-parte order in as much as Indrajeet Gupta was not granted sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence before the said authority. He submits that against the order of the S.A.R. court, he filed appeal and thereafter revision, but the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority did not appreciate that Indrajeet Gupta has constructed a house over the property and is living on the same and there has been no delay or laches on the part of the Indrajeet Gupta in conducting the case. He further submits that, in case, the matter is remanded back for consideration before the S.A.R. court in view of the writ petition being W.P.(C). He further submits that, in case, the matter is remanded back for consideration before the S.A.R. court in view of the writ petition being W.P.(C). No.3282 of 2002, then Indrajeet Gupta should also be granted an opportunity to adduce evidence before the S.A.R court, such that the true state of affairs may come to light. He may also be given an opportunity as to how and in what manner and since when Indrajeet Gupta is in possession of the property. He also submits that the application filed by Mahendra Kachhap which has been annexed with the writ petition does not indicate the date of dispossession of the property and therefore this aspect of the matter as to when the recorded tenants were dispossessed from the property has also to be considered by the S.A.R. Officer and this having not been considered by the authority, makes the impugned order passed by the S.A.R court perverse. He submits that the petitioner in show-cause reply had submitted before the authority that there was construction over the property prior to 1969 but this fact could not be established before the S.A.R. Officer as the petitioner was not granted sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence before the said authority, which resulted in passing of the impugned order passed by S.A.R. Officer. 10. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that one Mahendra Kachhap has filed an application for restoration before the S.A.R. court as back as in the year 1982, which was ultimately allowed vide order dated 23.08.1995 in S.A.R. Case No.77 of 1989-90. Admittedly, Indrajeet Gupta filed his show cause before the said authority and also some documents but on account of non-appearance of Indrajeet Gupta on certain dates the authority proceeded with the matter and passed final order for eviction of Indrajeet Gupta which related only to 32 decimals of land without recording the evidence of Indrajeet Gupta. Against which, the writ petitioners of W.P.(C). No.3282 of 2002 filed an appeal and they claim that they are the descendants of recorded tenant and Mahendra Kachhap had no locus to file the application for restoration of the land involved in this case, but the said appeal was dismissed on the ground that the writ petitioners of W.P.(C). Against which, the writ petitioners of W.P.(C). No.3282 of 2002 filed an appeal and they claim that they are the descendants of recorded tenant and Mahendra Kachhap had no locus to file the application for restoration of the land involved in this case, but the said appeal was dismissed on the ground that the writ petitioners of W.P.(C). No.3282 of 2002 neither intervened in the original proceeding nor were parties in the original proceeding and accordingly the appeal was held to be not maintainable at their instance. 11. This Court finds that although the writ petitioners of W.P.(C). No.3282 of 2002 were not parties in the original proceeding, but the property involved in the S.A.R. case was claimed by them, therefore the appellate authority ought to have remanded the matter before the original court to enquire into the fact as to whether Mahendra Kachhap or the writ petitioner of W.P.(C). No.3282 of 2002 were the actual owners/recorded tenant of the property. From the perusal of the orders passed by the S.A.R. court, this court finds that there is no finding as to how Mahendra kachhap had claimed the property. Before the appellate authority Mahendra Kachhap tried to justify the claim over the property but the same justification could not be appreciated by the appellate authority for the first time. Therefore, the matter ought to have been remanded by the appellate authority before the S.A.R. court for fresh consideration. The petitioners of W.P.(C). No.3282 of 2002 claim to be descendants of the recorded tenant of the property and the entire proceeding continued in their absence before the S.A.R. Officer at the instance of Mahendra Kachhap who filed application for restoration of land. The order passed by S.A.R. Officer in absence of recorded tenants amounts to breach of natural justice. Accordingly, the appellate authority ought to have recorded the matter for fresh consideration by S.A.R. Officer. As the Court finds that appellate authority has erred in law in not remanding the matter back to S.A.R. court if it had been remanded by the appellate authority, then Indrajeet Gupta would have also had the opportunity to adduce evidence before the S.A.R. court, which he could not adduce in the original proceeding conducted by S.A.R. court. As the Court finds that appellate authority has erred in law in not remanding the matter back to S.A.R. court if it had been remanded by the appellate authority, then Indrajeet Gupta would have also had the opportunity to adduce evidence before the S.A.R. court, which he could not adduce in the original proceeding conducted by S.A.R. court. This Court also finds that this aspect of the matter was not considered by the revisional authority and accordingly the revisional authority dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners of W.P.(C). No. 3282 of 2002 as well as Indrajeet Gupta. This Court finds that there is a serious dispute as to whether the property in question originally belonged to Mahendra Kachhap or his predecessor in interest or it belongs to the writ petitioner in W.P.(C). No.3282 of 2002 and their predecessor in interest. This dispute is required to be resolved after due adjudication and after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. This Court further finds that the property involved in this case was admittedly in possession of Indrajeet Gupta at the relevant point of time and therefore Indrajeet Gupta should also be given an opportunity of hearing so that he may also establish as to how he has got possession of the property involved in this case and what are his right, title and interest over the property. 12. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter in totality this Court finds that the impugned orders passed by the S.A.R. Court, the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority are fit to be set-aside and are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the S.A.R. Officer, Ranchi for passing fresh order after hearing Mahendra Kachhap, the petitioners of W.P.(C). No.3282 of 2002 as well as Indrajeet Gupta. It will be open to by the parties to adduce evidence before the said authority and in turn the S.A.R. Officer is directed to decide the matter afresh, after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since all the parties are represented herein, the parties are directed to appear before the S.A.R. Officer on 03.12.2018 and upon their appearance the S.A.R. Officer is directed to proceed in accordance with law and pass appropriate order. 13. Since all the parties are represented herein, the parties are directed to appear before the S.A.R. Officer on 03.12.2018 and upon their appearance the S.A.R. Officer is directed to proceed in accordance with law and pass appropriate order. 13. This Court finds that the stand taken by the writ petitioners in W.P.(C). No.3282 of 2002, that the writ petitioners ought to have been heard in the matter, as already been considered by Hon’ble Patna High Court in the aforesaid judgment and considering this aspect of the matter, the matter is remanded to the S.A.R. Court. 14. Accordingly, both these writ petitions are allowed with aforesaid observations and directions.