Nagendra Prasad Singh, J. This writ application has been filed on behalf of the sole petitioner for quashing an order dated 10.6.1971 passed by the respondent-Sub-divisional Officer in purported exercise of the power conferred on him by section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). By that order, the Sub-divisional Officer has directed the petitioner to restore the lands in question to the possession of respondent no. 1. A copy of that order is annexure-l to the writ application. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate, Ranchi which was dismissed on 9.12.1975. A copy of that order is annexure-2 to the writ application. The revision application filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Commissioner of Chotanagpur Division was also dismissed by order dated 6.2.1976, a copy whereof is annexure-3 to the writ application. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid orders have been passed in contravention of the provisions of the Act, and the Rules made thereunder, and. as such, liable to be quashed by this Court. 2. From the statements made in the writ application it appears that plot nos. 523, 549 and 1813 of khata no. 236 of village Hotchar in the district of Ranchi, measuring 0.94 acre was bakast Bhuinhari Pahanai land of one Madho Pahan. It was recorded in the name of said Madho Pahan. Dukhan Pahan (respondent no.1) is the son of the aforesaid Madho Pahan. According to the petitioner, respondent no. 1 transferred the said land to the petitioner. Later, a title suit was filed en behalf of the petitioner, which was numbered as Title Suit no. 519 of 1968 in the court of Munsif, Ranchi. That title suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner. The date, however, of such decree is not known. Sometime in the year 1970, perhaps, a petition was filed on behalf of respondent no 1 under section 71A of the Act, before the respondent-Sub-divisional Officer for restoration of the lands in question on the ground that the transfer has been made in contravention of the provisions of the Act. On the basis of that application, Miscellaneous Case no 134 of 1970 was registered and it was ultimately allowed by the impugned order dated 10.6.1971, as already stated above, which was affirmed in appeal end revision filed on behalf of the petitioner. 3. On the basis of that application, Miscellaneous Case no 134 of 1970 was registered and it was ultimately allowed by the impugned order dated 10.6.1971, as already stated above, which was affirmed in appeal end revision filed on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that section 71-A of the Act, has no application to lands which are part and parcel of bhuinhari tenure, and such, the respondent-Sub-divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. By the Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1969 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Regulation), section 71-A was introduced in the Act. The relevant portion of section 71-A is as follows :- "If at any time it comes to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that transfer of land belonging to a raiyat who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes has taken place in contravention of section 46 or any other provision of the Act, or by any fraudulent method, he may, after giving reasonable opportunity to the transferee, who is proposed to be evicted, to show cause and after making necessary enquiry in the matter evict the transferee from such land….." By the aforesaid Regulation, certain amendments were made in different Acts including the Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908), Limitation Act, (Act XXXVI of 1963). The proviso to Article 65 of the Limitation Act, was amended and period for adverse possession was raised to 30 years. It appears that a wide discretion was vested in the Deputy Commissioner concerned to evict transferees in respect of “land belonging to a raiyat who is a member of the Schedule Tribes” which has taken place in contravention of section 46 or any other provision of the Act, or which is obtained by fraudulent method. In view of the said provision, if it is held that the petitioner has taken transfer of the land belonging to a raiyat in contravention of the provisions of the Act, then there can be no doubt that aforesaid section 71-A will be applicable. But, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the lands in question did not belong to a raiyat. Respondent no.1, to whom the lands belonged, was a tenure-holder and not a raiyat. 4. But, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the lands in question did not belong to a raiyat. Respondent no.1, to whom the lands belonged, was a tenure-holder and not a raiyat. 4. From the orders of the Sub-divisional Officer as well as the orders passed in appeal and revision, it appears that there is no dispute that the land is bhuinhari and it had been recorded as Bakast Bhuinhari Pahanai land. The question, which is to be answered, is as to whether respondent no. 1 can be held to be a tenure-holder or a raiyat in respect of such lands. Section 6 of the Act, defines what is meant by raiyat saying that it means primarily a person who has acquired a right to hold land for the purpose of cultivating it by himself or by a member of his family etc. Section 5 defines what is meant by tenure-holder. It means primarily a person who has acquired from the proprietor or from any tenure-holder a right to hold land for the purpose of collecting rents etc. Section 5 (b) says that it includes the holders of tenures entered in any register prepared and confirmed under the Chotanagpur Tenures Act, 1869 (Bengal Act, 2 of 1869 hereinafter to be referred to as the Tenures Act, 1869). The tenure holders who have been entered in the register prepared and confirmed under the Tenures Act, 1869, are known as Bhuinhari Tenure holders. Therefore, the definition of 'tenure-holder' given under section 5 of the Act, also includes a Bhuinhari tenure-holder. The main object of Tenures Act, 1869 was to prepare a register in respect of tenures which were known as "Bhuinhari Tenures" held by persons claiming to be the descendants of original founders of the villages in which such lands are situated or their assigns. If a particular land is registered in the register maintained under that Act, then it will be deemed to be a Bhuinhari tenure and holder thereof as Bhuinhari tenure-holder. Rule 4 (b) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Rules, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules) again while defining a raiyat says what it means "an occupancy raiyat but does not include a member of a Bhuinhari family referred to in section 48.” 5. Rule 4 (b) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Rules, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules) again while defining a raiyat says what it means "an occupancy raiyat but does not include a member of a Bhuinhari family referred to in section 48.” 5. It appears that the holder of this bhuinhari tenure has been treated as a separate class under the Act, and specific provisions have been made in respect thereof. Section 10 of the Act, makes a provision that there shall be no enhancement of rent in respect of such tenures. Section 17 defines 'settled raiyat. But, there is a separate provision under section 18 in respect of holders of Bhuinhari tenure who may as well cultivate some land in the village as raiyats. Section 46 places restrictions regarding the transfers to be made by raiyats. So far as restriction over transfer of bhuinhari tenures is concerned, a separate provision under section 48 has been made. Section 47 provides for restriction of sale of raiyat's right under the orders of court. The parallel provision in respect of bhuinhari tenure is under section 48 A. From these provisions it can be held that the rights of a raiyat and rights of a holder of bhuinhari tenure are not same and provisions under the Act, have been made separately in respect of them. 6. In this connection it may be mentioned that after vesting of the estates under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Land Reforms Act) the rights and interest of intermediaries as well as tenure-holders have vested in the State of Bihar. But, so far as the interest of bhuinhari tenures is concerned, it has been specifically excluded. Section 2 (q) of the Land Reforms Act, defines 'tenure' and Section 2 (q) (iii) specifically says that it shall not include a bhuinhari tenure prepared and confirmed under the Tenures Act, 1969. The result will be that the consequence of vesting provided under section 4 (a) of the Land Reforms Act, will not, in any manner, affect so far as such tenures are concerned. Learned counsel appearing for the State Government had also to concede that such tenures are in existence even after the vesting of estates under the Land Reforms Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State Government had also to concede that such tenures are in existence even after the vesting of estates under the Land Reforms Act. 3. On behalf of the respondents, however, it was urged that although in section 71 A of the Act, only "lands belonging to a raiyat" has been mentioned, but this will also include the lands held by such bhuinhari tenure-holders. In support of this contention, our attention was drawn to section 18 of the Act, which runs as follows :- "The following classes of persons shall be deemed to be settled raiyats for the purposes of this Act, in regard to the land in their villages which they cultivate as raiyats (other than their own Bhuinhari or Mundari khunt-kattidari land, and other than landlords' privileged lands defined in section 118), and the provisions of subsections (3) and (6) of section 17 shall apply to such persons as if they were raiyats, namely:- (a) where any land in a village, other than land known as manjhi-has or bethkheta, is entered in any register prepared and confirmed under the Chotanagpur Tenures Act, 1869 (Ben Act, 2 of 1869) all members of any Bhuinhari family who hold, and have for twelve years continuously held land in such village, and (b) where any village contains land not forming part of a Mundri khunt-kattidari tenancy and an entry of Mundari khunt-kattidari tenancies or of Mundari khunt-kattidari in such village has been made in any record-of-rights as finally published under this Act, or under any law in force before the commencement of this Act-all male members of any Mundri khunt-kattidari family who hold, and have for twelve years continuously held, land in such village." According to learned Government Pleader, if owner of a Bhuinhari tenure holds any land in a village which he cultivates as a raiyat, then in view of section 18 he will be deemed to be a raiyat and he will also be covered by section 71 A of the Act. In my view, this argument cannot be accepted. The purpose of section 18 appears to be that if a person, who is a holder of a bhuinhari tenure and cultivates lands other than under such tenure in the village, that he will be deemed to be a raiyat in respect of such lands, i.e. the lands which he is cultivating as raiyat. The purpose of section 18 appears to be that if a person, who is a holder of a bhuinhari tenure and cultivates lands other than under such tenure in the village, that he will be deemed to be a raiyat in respect of such lands, i.e. the lands which he is cultivating as raiyat. The words "other than their own Bhuinhari" used in section 18, according to me, are very relevant. If such raiyat was to become raiyat even in respect of bhunihari lands, then there was no sense in using the expression 'other than'. Instead of that, the word used should have been including their bhuinhari lands'. The scheme of section 18 appears to be that such a person will hold both the rights. He will be a raiyat in respect of lands which are other than the lands within Bhuinhari tenure and he will be a tenure-holder in respect of the lands which are within his Bhuinhari tenure. My this view is supported by separate provision regarding transfers and under sections 43, 48A and 49. If all bhunihari tenure-holders by cultivating land had become raiyats under section 18, then there was no question of making separate provisions regarding transfer of such lands. On proper construction, it can be held that if any member of bhuinhari family, if he holds land as a raiyat in the village and if he transferred the same, then the provisions of sections 46 and 71A will apply. But, if he transfers land within the bhuinhari tenure, then provision of section 48 shall apply. As section 71 A speaks of only transfer of land belonging to a raiyat, in my opinion, it will not include the lands belonging to a person) who is holding it in the capacity of a bhuinhari tenure-holder. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the legislation being for protecting the interest of the weaker section of the society a more liberal interpretation should be given to the provision of section 71A so as to Include even such transfers. I have already pointed out that there is no question of interpreting section 71A in isolation. Under the Act, the two rights have been separately dealt with and it is difficult to read under section 71A that it purports to cover even transfers made by bhuinhari tenure-holders. I have already pointed out that there is no question of interpreting section 71A in isolation. Under the Act, the two rights have been separately dealt with and it is difficult to read under section 71A that it purports to cover even transfers made by bhuinhari tenure-holders. It is always open to the Legislature in such a situation to amend the provisions in question so that the intention of the Legislature may be clearly expressed. If that was the intention, then it is still open to them to amend section 71A and make a clear provision so that it may even cover such cases. A Bench of this Court presided over by Shambhu Prasad Singh and Muneshwari Sahai, JJ., in the case of Sudarsan Ram V. Rawal Markeita and others, disposed of on 25.2.1976, had an occasion to consider as to whether section 71A is applicable to under-raiyats. This Court, after referring to different sections, came to the conclusion that they apply to raiyats and not to under-raiyats. I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid judgment. Accordingly, I hold that possession of the lands, which have been transferred by respondent no. 1 to the petitioner, cannot be restored in exercise of the powers under section 71A of the Act. The respondents-authorities should have taken action under section 48 of the Act, which is a specific provision for such transfers. It is more or less a parallel provision, the only difference being that proceeding has to be initiated within 12 years from the date of the transfer. 9. Accordingly, I allow this application, quash the three orders by the respondents authorities (annexures 1, 2 and 3) and remit the case back to the respondent-Sub-divisional Officer to examine as to whether action under sub-section (4) of section 48 of the Act, can be taken. The petitioner has claimed to have taken transfer in the year 1950, but on his own saying, he later filed a title suit in the year 1968 (Title Suit no. 519 of 1968) for a declaration that due to long possession he has acquired title over the land. A copy of the plaint was produced before this court. However, the judgment and decree has not been produced. 519 of 1968) for a declaration that due to long possession he has acquired title over the land. A copy of the plaint was produced before this court. However, the judgment and decree has not been produced. Now this assertion of acquiring title by long possession and by efflux of time has to be examined in the light of amended Article 65 of the Limitation Act, by the aforesaid Regulation which prescribes a limitation of 30 years. Learned Sub-divisional Officer shall direct the parties to adduce necessary evidence on that point and then he will decide as to whether action under section 48 of the Act, can be taken. The application tiled on behalf of respondent no. 1 will now be disposed of in the light of observations made above. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. I agree. Application allowed. Case sent back for re-consideration.