JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. Heard Mr. Niraj Kishore, counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents. 3. Heard Mr. Ramanand Pandey, A.C. to S.C.- II appearing on behalf of the respondent- State. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs : “For issuance of an appropriate writ/Rule/Order for quashing the Order dated 24.8.1987, passed by the Executive Magistrate, Sadar, Hazaribagh (Annexure-2) by which the application filed by the petitioner for restoration of lands under the Provisions of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, measuring an area of 13 decimal out of Plot no. 2391 of Khata No. 141, situated at village Ramgarh, Tola Parsotia, District- Hazaribagh has been rejected and for quashing the order dated 02.05.1992 passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh dismissing S A R appeal no. 64/87 filed by the petitioner (Annexure- 5) and for quashing the order dated 16.10.2001 (Annexure-6) passed by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh in Lands Restoration Revision no. 62/92 rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner on the grounds that the provisions of CNT Act are not applicable in the Ramgarh Cantonment area although the provisions of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act are well applicable in the whole region of Chhotanagpur including within the premises of Ramgarh Cantonment area and for such other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is legally entitled to.” 5. Counsel for the petitioners submits as under : (a) Lands of Khata No. 141 of Mauza Parsotie P.S. Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh was recorded in the name of Ledu Munda and others, the ancestors of the petitioners. (b) Khata No. 141 corresponding to plot no. 2391 situated at village Ramgarh was possessed by Nandu Munda, the legal heir of the recorded tenant. (c) The petitioners filed an application for restoration of 0.13 acres of land of Khata No. 141, Plot No. 2392 of village Ramgarh. Pursuant to the said application, notices were issued to the private respondent and thereafter, an inspection was conducted by the Circle Officer who submitted his report vide letter No. 478 dated 24.07.1987 and the Karmchari had reported that the private respondent is in possession of the disputed land since 1982 and prior to this, the vendor of the private respondent was reportedly in possession since 1964. However, the Circle Inspector found that there was no document shown as to how the private respondent came in possession of the property. (d) Thereafter, the petitioners filed a petition for amendment dated 08.07.1987 mentioning therein that the plot number in the application was wrongly mentioned as 2392 instead of 2391. Such amendment was duly allowed vide order dated 24.08.1987. The private respondent herein had initially filed a reply to the original application on 19.03.1987 and a reply to the amended application was also filed by the private respondent after amendment was allowed. (e) The specific case of the petitioners before the authority was that the petitioners have been dispossessed from the property by virtue of sale-deed registered by one Jadunath Prajapati in the year 1982 and they were dispossessed since then. (f) The application for restoration of land was rejected vide order dated 24.08.1987 directing the respondent no. 5 to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation to the petitioners and the order was passed on the basis of the report of the Circle Officer that the recorded tenant was dispossessed since 1964 which was much beyond the period of 12 years. This was because of the reason that private respondents herein claimed that vide Encroachment Case No. 89 of 1964, Bigu Prajapati was found in possession of the property to the extent of 45 decimals of land out of 61 decimals of land in Plot No. 2391 and that thereafter, the property was settled in his favour and rent receipts were also issued. (g) Against this order, the petitioners filed appeal before the appellate authority which was numbered as S.A.R. Appeal No. 64 of 1987 which was also dismissed vide order dated 16.09.1987. (h) Thereafter the petitioners preferred revision which was numbered as Restoration Revision No. 113 of 1987 before Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh and the said authority remanded the matter back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration vide order dated 27.10.1988. (i) The order of remand was made with specific direction vide para 8 of the order dated 27.10.1988 and the directions issued were as follows: “8. This is a fit case to be remanded to the Additional Collector who should examine the claims especially the points mentioned hereunder:- (i) The so called encroachment case no. 89/64 should be carefully seen. Who were the parties in this case? This is a fit case to be remanded to the Additional Collector who should examine the claims especially the points mentioned hereunder:- (i) The so called encroachment case no. 89/64 should be carefully seen. Who were the parties in this case? Was the recorded tenant made a party? How encroachment proceeding was initiated in respect of a raiyati plot? How a raiyati plot was reportedly settled with Bigu Prajapati, father of Jadunath Prajapati? To what extent the settlement claimed by Bigu Prajapati was just and legal? Is it not abinitio void. (ii) Was the name of Bigu Prajapati mutated on the basis of orders passed in encroachment case no. 89/64. Was there any order of mutation by the competent authority. If so, the details there of should be found out. (iii) Position of payment of rent in respect of 45 decimals of land in plot no. 2391 claimed to have been settled with Bigu Prajapati from 1964 onwards should be ascertained. Were any rent receipts were issued. The basis for opening Jamabandi in the name of Bigu Prajapati should be brought on record. (iv) It should be especially ascertained whether the recorded tenant was made a party in mutation cases. (v) Year of dispossession of the tribal should be ascertained the documents as well as by local witnesses.” (j) The report of the Circle Officer was already on record and the revisional authority was still of the considered view that much enquiry was required to be done. This was particularly in view of the fact that the findings recorded in the inspection report by the Circle Officer was seriously disputed by the petitioners and accordingly, the revisional authority found it proper to get the records of Encroachment Case No. 89 of 1964 and all consequential orders passed thereto examined by the appellate authority in terms of para 8 of the order of remand dated 27.10.1988 and five directions which are quoted in para 5(i) of this order all of which related to the point of possession , were issued. (k) Pursuant to the order of remand, the appellate authority issued notice to the parties and answered the various issues raised in para 8 of the revisional order in favour of the petitioners. (k) Pursuant to the order of remand, the appellate authority issued notice to the parties and answered the various issues raised in para 8 of the revisional order in favour of the petitioners. (l) The appellate authority after remand found that in Encroachment Case No. 89 of 1964, the private respondents were found in possession of 0.45 acres of Plot No. 2391 and an order was passed for recommendation for settlement of this property and the matter was to be placed before the Land Reform Deputy Collector. The appellate authority also found that the subsequent orders passed after passing the order in Land Encroachment Case No. 89 of 1964 are not available and accordingly, it could not be ascertained as to who were the parties in the said case and therefore, it could also not be ascertained as to whether the recorded tenant was made a party in the proceeding or not. It was also found that it could not be ascertained as to how in respect of the property which is recorded in the record-of-rights in the name of recorded tenant, a land encroachment proceeding could be initiated as land encroachment case can be initiated only in connection with government properties. Further, the rent receipts which were issued to the private respondent did not indicate any case number and accordingly, it could not be ascertained as to vide which mutation case, the land was mutated in favour of the private respondent. Nothing could be found as to the basis on which the land was mutated in the name of Bigu Prajapati. (m) But, in spite of the aforesaid findings, the authority again based its final direction/conclusion solely on the basis of the inspection report of the Circle Officer dated 24.07.1987 indicating that the petitioners were dispossessed from the property as back as in the year 1964 which was beyond the prescribed period of 12 years and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. Against this, a revision was filed which was numbered as Land Restoration Revision No. 62 of 1992. (n) Further, counsel for the petitioners submits that in the order of revision which is dated 16.10.2001, the said authority has not only committed serious error of record while recording the facts, but has also recorded findings on other issues which were beyond the scope of the dispute between the parties before the authorities below. (n) Further, counsel for the petitioners submits that in the order of revision which is dated 16.10.2001, the said authority has not only committed serious error of record while recording the facts, but has also recorded findings on other issues which were beyond the scope of the dispute between the parties before the authorities below. While making this submission, counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the revisional authority has recorded that an application on 08.07.1987 was filed for restoration of 0.13 acres of land in Plot No. 2391 and he submits that this statement is not correct as the original application related to Plot No. 2392. (o) He also submits that it has been recorded in the impugned order that Encroachment Case No. 89 of 1964 was instituted for 0.53 acres out of 0.61 acres, but the fact is that it was instituted for 0.45 acres and not for 0.53 acres. Further, the registered sale-deed in favour of the private respondent included only 0.12 acres and not 0.13 acres. The said authority has also recorded that the total settlement of land was for 0.53 acres. The said authority has also recorded a finding that the land in dispute is a tribal land and the original applicant is the daughter of the recorded tenant and as per the tribal custom of Munda, She could not have inherited the share of her father, so the petitioners have no case. The said authority has also recorded a finding that the property in dispute is situated in Ramgarh Cantonment Board and provisions of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 are not applicable in Cantonment Board. (p) Counsel for the petitioners also submits that the revisional authority has not only travelled beyond the scope of litigation and has recorded findings for the first time in revisional jurisdiction, but otherwise also, the findings recorded by the revisional authority are incorrect. (q) He further submits that entire proceeding after remand was to be confined to the order of remand and there was no scope for the revisional authority to enter into other issues relating to applicability of the Cantonment Board and as to whether the petitioner has inherited the property or not. (q) He further submits that entire proceeding after remand was to be confined to the order of remand and there was no scope for the revisional authority to enter into other issues relating to applicability of the Cantonment Board and as to whether the petitioner has inherited the property or not. (r) Counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the property involved in this case is admittedly a raiyati property and under no circumstances, any land encroachment proceedings could have been initiated in the raiyati land. He also submits that under no circumstances, the said property could have been settled with any other person whomsoever. (s) The inspection report was dated 24.07.1987 and a petition for amendment was filed on 08.07.1987 in connection with the plot number which was allowed only on 24.08.1987. (t) Counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid submissions ,the impugned order which has been passed by the authorities are perverse and the said are fit to be set-aside. 6. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submits that there cannot be any dispute that an Encroachment Case No. 89 of 1964 was initiated in connection with this property to the extent of 0.45 acres out of 0.61 acres in Plot No. 2391 and Bigu Prajapati was found in possession of the same. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that the petitioners were dispossessed from the property at least since the year 1964. 7. He submits that out of the area of 61 decimals, the said Bigu Prajapati was found in possession of only 45 decimals and out of that, his son sold 12 decimal to the private respondent vide registered sale-deed of the year 1982 and accordingly, he submits that the Circle Officer also found in his report dated 24.07.1987 that the petitioners are dispossessed from the property since the year 1964. Accordingly, this particular report of the Circle Officer was enough to hold that the petitioners were dispossessed since 1964 and accordingly, an application for restoration filed by the petitioners was time-barred having been filed only in the year 1986. 8. Accordingly, this particular report of the Circle Officer was enough to hold that the petitioners were dispossessed since 1964 and accordingly, an application for restoration filed by the petitioners was time-barred having been filed only in the year 1986. 8. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submits that the other issues which have been decided by the revisional authority in connection with inheritance of property and also in connection with non-coverage of the property being in the Cantonment Board, he does not dispute the fact that these were findings recorded for the first time before the revisional authority and were beyond the scope of the order of remand passed by the appellate authority. 9. Counsel further submits that the petitioners have lost in all the three courts and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders and accordingly the same do not call for any interference. He also submits that the petitioners herein have not challenged the sale-deed in a competent court of civil jurisdiction and has not preferred any mutation appeal as the property was mutated in favour of the private respondent. 10. Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents also submits that they are in possession of the property and are residing on the property by constructing a house on the property. 11. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- State supports the submission made by the counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents. 12. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that admittedly the total area of Plot No. 2391 is 61 decimals and was recorded in the name of ancestors of the petitioners in the record-of-rights. In the year 1964, there was a land encroachment case against Bigu Prajapati and he was found to be in possession of 45 decimals of land. But, on the record, there is no boundary available so far as 45 decimals of land out of 61 decimals of land is concerned. 13. Further, the Circle Officer had referred the matter to Land Reform Deputy Collector for the purposes of settlement of this land, although, admittedly this property is recorded in the name of ancestors of the petitioners. But, on the record, there is no boundary available so far as 45 decimals of land out of 61 decimals of land is concerned. 13. Further, the Circle Officer had referred the matter to Land Reform Deputy Collector for the purposes of settlement of this land, although, admittedly this property is recorded in the name of ancestors of the petitioners. Admittedly, there is nothing on record as to whether any settlement was ever made in favour of Bigu Prajapati who was found in possession of 45 decimal out of 61 decimal of Plot No. 2391. Rent receipts were also issued, but on the rent receipt there is no mutation case number mentioned and no order of mutation is available in favour of Bigu Prajapati in connection with 45 decimals of land. Son of Bigu Prajapati sold 12 decimals of land to the private respondent in the year 1982 and the petitioners claim that they have been dispossessed from the property since then. 14. This Court finds that once the date of dispossession has been given in the proceeding by the tribal in application filed under the provisions of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, the onus is on the person who claims that the tribal was dispossessed for a period longer than the period he claims. In the instant case, the private respondent claimed that the petitioner was dispossessed since the year 1964. 15. This Court finds that the original application for restoration of land was dismissed by taking into account the report of the Circle Officer which indicated that the petitioner has been dispossessed since 1964, against which the appeal was dismissed and the revisional authority in Restoration Revision Case No. 113 of 1987 (wherein report of the Circle Officer was seriously disputed) remanded the matter back by considering the fact that the records of Land Encroachment Case No. 89 of 1964 as well as its legality, validity and consequential orders are required to be examined and accordingly, this Court finds that the revisional authority was of the considered view that the very finding that the petitioner was dispossessed since 1964 could not be given solely on the documents which were already available on record. Accordingly, he also observed that order of dispossession of the tribal should be ascertained by the documents as well as by local witnesses. Accordingly, he also observed that order of dispossession of the tribal should be ascertained by the documents as well as by local witnesses. The points indicated in the order of remand have already been quoted above in para 5(i) of this order. 16. From the records of the case, this Court finds that no witness has been produced by the original private respondent before the authority to substantiate his possession since 1964 and the only document which has been relied upon by the private respondent is the proceeding of Land Encroachment Case No. 89 of 1964 which neither indicated any demarcation of the area i.e. 45 decimal out of 61 decimal nor it indicates any finality in connection with the so-called settlement of the private respondent. 17. This Court finds that the appellate authority, upon remand, found all the issues framed by the revisional authority against the private respondent, but still recorded its finding on the basis of the inspection report of the Circle Officer contained in report dated 24.07.1987 which itself was throughout disputed and ultimately led to passing of the order of remand indicating the points to be examined which all related to ascertaining the date of possession of the private respondent. 18. This Court also finds that if the report itself was sufficient for holding that the petitioner was dispossessed from the property since 1964, then there was no occasion for the revisional authority to remand the matter by framing issues and directions as to how the date of dispossession of the recorded tenant has to be ascertained. This Court finds that it was for the private respondent to prove through witnesses, as already indicated in the order of remand, that the petitioner was dispossessed since 1964 and for which, the local witnesses also could be examined. But, it appears that the private respondent did not make any endeavor to take any such step and ultimately, the original authority based its finding on the inspection report dated 24.07.1987, which in the considered view of this Court, could not have been done. 19. But, it appears that the private respondent did not make any endeavor to take any such step and ultimately, the original authority based its finding on the inspection report dated 24.07.1987, which in the considered view of this Court, could not have been done. 19. This Court finds that the reliance placed by the appellate authority after remand in holding that the petitioner was dispossessed since 1964 solely on the basis of inspection report dated 24.07.1987, is itself perverse on the face of the order of remand which was passed with various directions and also framed issues arising in connection with possession of the property and all of them upon remand were answered against the private respondent. As the records of the encroachment case were not available, it was certainly for the private respondent to prove the dispossession of the petitioner since 1964 by cogent evidence, which the private respondent did not produce. He could have produced oral evidences also, which he chose not to produce. 20. Accordingly, this Court finds that the conclusion arrived at by the appellate authority after remand by the revisional authority, suffers from patent illegality as indicated above and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 21. So far as the revisional order challenging the appellate order is concerned, this Court finds that new points could not have been examined by the revisional authority particularly in view of the fact that fresh order was passed by the appellate authority pursuant to the order of remand which mainly related to the point of the possession of the property only. So the issue as to whether the original petitioner could have inherited the property from her father or whether the property falls in the Cantonment Board area or not, could not have been gone into by the revisional authority for the first time as the parties never joined issues on these points. Accordingly, this Court also finds that the impugned order passed by the revisional authority is also perverse and is hereby set-aside. 22. This Court further finds that the private respondent herein has failed to prove that the petitioner was dispossessed from the property since the year 1964 in spite of the order of remand wherein he was granted liberty to adduce oral evidences as well. 23. 22. This Court further finds that the private respondent herein has failed to prove that the petitioner was dispossessed from the property since the year 1964 in spite of the order of remand wherein he was granted liberty to adduce oral evidences as well. 23. Accordingly, the impugned orders being order dated 24.08.1987, passed by the Executive Magistrate, Sadar, Hazaribagh rejecting the application for restoration of land , order dated 02.05.1992 passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh dismissing S. A. R. Appeal No. 64/87 and order dated 16.10.2001 passed by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh in Lands Restoration Revision no. 62/92 are perverse and they are hereby set-aside. The application filed by the petitioners for restoration of land involved in this case being S.A.R. Case No. 543 of 1986 is hereby allowed. 24. This writ petition is hereby allowed.