Judgment S.B.Sinha, J. 1. This application is directed against the order dated 11-1-1982 passed by the respondent No. 2 as contained in Annexure 4 to the writ application and order dated 6-6-83 passed by the respondent No. 3 as contained in Annexure 5 to the Writ application as also the order dated 29-5-1986 passed by the respondeat No. 4 as contained in Annexure 6 to the writ application whereby and whereunder the said respondents in purported exercise of their powers under Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act directed for restoration of lands in plot Nos. 8612, 8613, 8620, 8621, 8622, 8623, 8627, 8628, 8636, 8638, 8649, 8661, 8665. 8666, 8667, 8674,8676, 8678, 8785,9089, 9730, 9731, 9741, 9742, 9743, 9998,999, 10000,10002,10003,10011, 10012, 8958, 8283, and 8286 bearing Khata No. 142 of village Banta, P.S. Silli, District Ranchi. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. 3. According to the respondent Nos. 5 to 8, the aforementiond Paras belonged to their pre-decessors-in-interest. 4. In the year 1911-12 the said properties were sold in auction in certificate case No. 92 of 1911-12 and in the said certificate proceeding one Ram Lal Sahu purchased the properties in question. 5. By reason of a deed of sale dated 1-11-1969 Bhartu Sahu and Lalji Sahu and others as the legal representative of the aforementioned Ram Lal Sahu executed a deed of sale in respect of 4 50 acres of land in favour of the plaintiff No. 1 and his brothers namely. Bhagirath Mandal, Santa Mandal and Anant Mandal. By another deed of sale dated 16-5-45 Bhartu Sahu and Lalji Sahu again sold 8 07 acres of land to Karma Mahto (father of petitioner Nos. 2 to 4) and 8.06 acres of land to Hira Mahto (father of petitioner No. 8) Naratlam Patar (father of proforma respondent No. 6) and Kalipado Choudhary (petitioner No. 9) and Natrattam Patar later on sold his share in favour of the petitioner No. 5 Mohan Mahto. 6. According to the petitioners they have got their names mutated and have been paying rent to the ex-landlord and after vesting of the Estate to the State of Bihar. However in relation to the properties in question there had been a proceeding under Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure between respondent No. 5 Bhartu Sahu and Laljee Sahu which was registered as Case No. 1049/62. 7. However in relation to the properties in question there had been a proceeding under Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure between respondent No. 5 Bhartu Sahu and Laljee Sahu which was registered as Case No. 1049/62. 7. The said proceeding was ultimately decided in favour of respondent No. 5. 8. It appears that some other proceedings under Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also initiated. 9. On or about 31-1-75 the respondent No. 5 filed an application for restoration of the lands in question before the respondent No. 2 which was registered as S.A.R Case No. 18/75-76. The said proceeding was dismissed by an order dated 24-1-1976 which is contained in Annexure 17 to the writ application. According to the petitioner, no appeal has been preferred by the respondent from the said order dated 24-1-1976. 10. The respondent No. 5 filed another application under Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act on 9-6-1980 which was registered as S.A.R. Case No. 72-80/81, and by an order dated 21-11-80 as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ application, the said application was also dismissed. 11. The respondent No. 5 allegedly filed document relating to a case in a proceeding under Sec.145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being case No. M 1049/62 which proceeding was decided in favour of the petitioners. 12. By an order dated 20-2-1981 which is contained in Annexure 3 to the writ application, the respondent No. 2 dismissed the claim of the respondent No. 5 hollding therein that a disputed question of possession cannot be decided under Section 71A of the C.N.T Act. Thereafter the respondent No. 5 filed another application under Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act which was registered as S.A.R. Case No. 119/81-82. The impugned orders have been passed in the said proceeding. 13. Mr T. Sen. the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order as contained in Annexures 4, 5 and 6 to the writ application are barred under the principles of res judicata as the earlier applications filed by the respondent No. 5 were dismissed by the respondent No. 2 in terms of order dated 24-1-76 as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application as also the order dated 21-11-80 as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ application. 14 The learned Counsel further submitted that in any event the lands in question having been sold in auction in a certificate proceeding in the year 1911-12, a proceeding under Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act is not maintainable. 14. A proceeding under Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act is a judicial proceeding. It is now well-known by various decisions of the Supreme Court as also this Court that although in such a proceeding the provisions of Sec.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure have no application, but therein the general principles of res judicata shall apply. It is not disputed that the respondent No. 5 had filed two other applications under Section 71A of the Act which were dismissed by the aforementioned orders dated 24-1-76 and 21-11-80 as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ application. 15. It is also not disputed that the respondent No. 5 did not preferred any appeal against the said orders. Thus the aforementioned orders become final and binding upon the respondent No. 5 and thus any other proceeding under Section 71A of the C.N.T Act could not have been initiated at his instance. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in Sohan Lal V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1988 BLT 244 and reference in this connection may, also be made to Smt. Raj Lakshmi Dedi V/s. Banamali Sen -- and Gulam Abbas and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. This aspect of the matter has been considered by this Court in Sohan Lal V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1988 BLT 244 and reference in this connection may, also be made to Smt. Raj Lakshmi Dedi V/s. Banamali Sen -- and Gulam Abbas and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. -- , Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act reads as follows: Power to restore possession to member of the Scheduled Tribes over land unlawfully, transferred.--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 Sec. 46 or any other provisions of this Act or by any fraudulent method including decrees obtained in suits by fraud or collusion 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 without payment of compensation and restore it to the transferor or his heir and if such heir is not available or is not willing to agree to such restoration re-settle it with another raiyat belonging to the Scheduled Tribes according to the village custom for the disposal of an abandoned holding. 16. From a perusal of the aforementioned provisions, it is clear that the same is inter alia attracted in a case in which a fraud has been practised upon a member of the Scheduled Tribes by a person who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribes or when a transfer has taken place in violation of the provisions of Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act, or any other provisions of the said Act. In a case where the provisions of Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act is sought to be taken recourse to it must shown that transfer has been made in violation of the provisions of the C.N.T. Act. In the year 1911-1912, there was no bar in holding an auction in relation to a property belonging to, a member of a Scheduled Tribes. Such a bar was created for the first time by reasons of insertions of Section 47(1b) of the C.N.T. Act in the year 1938. 17. In the year 1911-1912, there was no bar in holding an auction in relation to a property belonging to, a member of a Scheduled Tribes. Such a bar was created for the first time by reasons of insertions of Section 47(1b) of the C.N.T. Act in the year 1938. 17. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders as contained in Annexures 4 to 6 of the writ petition cannot be sustained. This application is, therefore, allowed and the impugned orders as contained in Annexures 4, 5 and 6 are quashed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.