JUDGMENT S.B. SINHA, J. 1. This application is directed against the order dated 10.7 1979 passed by the respondent no. 3 in S.A.R. No. 270 of 1971-72 and as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application the order dated 7.7.1986 passed by the respondent no. 2 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 46R/15/1979-80 and as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ application and the order dated 27.12.1986 passed by the respondent no. 1 in Ran S.A.R. Revision No. 480 of 1986, as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. The respondent no. 4 filed an application before the respondent no. 3 purported to be under Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act praying therein that the lands in plot nos. 1565, 1566, 1567, 1568 and 1570 of Mouza Bhargaon Tetartoli be restored to him. It appears that the said application for restoration was allowed. 4. However, upon an appeal preferred by the petitioner, the matter was remanded. By reason of the impugned order dated 10.7.1979, as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application, the respondent no. 3 directed resporation of land being plot no. 1565 only and refused the prayer of the respondent no. 4 so far as the lands related, to plot nos. 1566, 1567, 1568 and 1570 are concerned. 5. As against the said order, as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 2, which was registered as S.A.R. No. 46R/15/1969-1980. The respondent no. 4 also preferred an appeal which was registered as S.A.R. Appeal No. 76R/15 of 1979. 6. The appeal preferred by respondent no. 4 was dismissed for default. However, by reason of the impugned order dated 7/14.7.1986 as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ application, the respondent no. 2 directed restoration of the four plots aforementioned also in favour of the respondents. 7. A revision was filed by the petitioner as against the said order and in terms of the order dated 27.12.1986, which is contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application the respondent no. 1 dismissed the application in limine. 8. Mr. V. Shivnath, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised two contentions in support of this application. A revision was filed by the petitioner as against the said order and in terms of the order dated 27.12.1986, which is contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application the respondent no. 1 dismissed the application in limine. 8. Mr. V. Shivnath, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised two contentions in support of this application. The learned counsel firstly submitted that nature of the land being Manjhias, the then landlord continued to be in possession of the lands in question and after vesting of the Zamindari in the State of Bihar under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act became a statutory tenant under the State and thereafter, by reason of a deed of sale dated 21.5.1963 transferred the aforementioned plots alongwith 1570 to the petitioner and his two brothers besides other lands. 9. It appears that the respondent no. 4 before the respondent no. 3, inter alia contended that the said land were given by the ex-landlord to him as Naukarana land. He also alleged that he had been granted settlement in respect of the said land by reason of a Hukumnama. 10. 9. It appears that the respondent no. 4 before the respondent no. 3, inter alia contended that the said land were given by the ex-landlord to him as Naukarana land. He also alleged that he had been granted settlement in respect of the said land by reason of a Hukumnama. 10. Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy 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 Section 46 or any other provision of this Act or by any fraudulent method (including decree obtained in suit by fraud and 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, or in case the transferor or his heir is not available or is not willing to agree to such restoration, re-settled it with another raiyat belonging to the Scheduled Tribes according to the village custom for the disposal of an abandoned holding:– Provided that if the transferee has within 30 years from the date of transfer, constructed any building or structure on such holding or portion thereof, the Deputy Commissioner, shall if the transferor is not willing to pay the value of the same, order the transferee to remove the same within a period of six months from the date of the order, or within such extended time not exceeding two years from the date of the order as the Deputy Commissioner may allow, failing which the Deputy Commissioner may get such building or structure removed:– Provided further that where the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that the transferee has constructed a substantial structure or building on such holding or portion thereof before coming into force of the Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1969, he may notwithstanding any other provisions of the Act, validate such a transfer where the transferee either makes available to the transferor an alternative holding or promotion thereof, as the case may be, of the equivalent value in the vicinity or pays adequate compensation to be determined by the Deputy Commissioner for rehabilitation of the transferor:– Provided also that if after an expiry the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that the transferee has acquired a title by adverse possession and that the transferred land should be restored or re-settled, he shall require the transferor or his heir or another raiyat as the case may be, to deposit with the Deputy Commissioner such sum of money as may be determined by the Deputy Commissioner having regard to the amount for which the land was transferred or the market value of the land as the case may be, and the amount of any compensation for improvements effected to the land which the Deputy Commissioner may deem fair and equitable." 11. In terms of the provisions of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, in or over manjhias land, no person can acquire a right of occupancy unless the nature of the land itself is changed. A manjhias land remains the privileged lands of the landlord. 12. The courts below have not found in favour of the respondent no. 4 that he derived any title in relation to the lands in question by reason of Hukumnama granted in his favour by the ex-landlord. 13. The courts below proceeded on the basis that nature of the lands were naukarana. In such a situation, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the ex-tenure holder becomes the statutory tenant under the State of Bihar. Such a question of title cannot be a subject matter of a proceeding under Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. The respondent no. 4 did not allege that there had been a transfer by a member of Scheduled Tribe in favour of other person in contravention of the provision of Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act and thus an application under Section 71A thereof was not maintainable. 14. Further, in this case, evidently, the appeal preferred by the respondent. no. 4 from the order dated 10.7.1979 passed by the respondent no. 3 being SRA Appeal No. 76 of 1979 in respect of plot nos. 1566, 1567, 1568 and 1570 having been dismissed for default, the order of respondent no. 3 dated 10.7.1979 become final and binding as against the said respondent in relation to the said plots. 15. The respondent no. 1 and 2, therefore, while passing the impugned order as contained in Annexures-9 and 10 to the writ application could not have directed the restoration of all the four plots. In such a case, even the provision contained in Order 41 Rule 22 and Order 41 Rule 33 of the C.P.C. will have no application. 16. Taking thus all facts and circumstances into consideration, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained. 17. It however goes without saying that the respondent no. 4 will be at liberty to file a suit for declaration of title. 18. This application is, therefore, allowed but without any order as to costs. 19. 16. Taking thus all facts and circumstances into consideration, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained. 17. It however goes without saying that the respondent no. 4 will be at liberty to file a suit for declaration of title. 18. This application is, therefore, allowed but without any order as to costs. 19. Before parting with the case, it may be mentioned that at the time of admission of this application, this Court directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the aforementioned amount.