Judgment Satyabrata Sinha, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 17-4-1989 passed by Respondent No. 2 as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition as also the order dated 19-5-1990 passed in SAR App. I R. 15 of 1990-91 by respondent No. 3 as contained in Annexure-3 whereby and where-under the said authority allowed the application filed by respondents 4 to 7 purported to be under Sec. 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 respectively. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 filed an application purported to be under Section 71-A of the Act sometime in the year 1988 before respondent No. 2. In the said application the said respondents had not given any details with regard to the alleged transfer which was sought to be cancelled. In fact, in respect of relevant column (sic) column 5, the said respondents stated that no transfer was made. 4. Before respondent No. 2, the petitioner produced a registered deed of sale dated 13-5-1944 as so the other documents for the purpose of proving that the father of respondents No. 4 to 7 transferred the disputed land in favour of the father of the petitioner and thereafter they had been in possession of the land in question. 5. Respondent No. 2 held that there had been a violation of Sec. 46 of the Act and, therefore, directed that the petitioner should restore the land in question to respondents No. 4 to 7 on receipt of sum of Rs. 5. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order and in the said appeal the petitioner contended that as the petitioner as also the concerned respondents were members of the Scheduled Tribes there was no violation of Sec. 46 of the Act, inasmuch as even the provision for obtaining permission thereof before the transfer could be effected in favour of another member of the Scheduled Tribes come into brought on the statute book in the year 1947. The respondent No. 3, however, dismissed the said appeal holding that the Scheduled Area Regulation came into force in the year 1969 with retrospective effect. The respondent No. 3, however, dismissed the said appeal holding that the Scheduled Area Regulation came into force in the year 1969 with retrospective effect. Sec. 71-A of the Act reads as follows: 71-A. 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 provision of the Act or by any fraudulent method including decrees 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 heirs, or in case the transferor or his/her 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 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 transfer 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 Area 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 portion 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 rehabitition of the transferor: Provided also that if after an enquiry the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that the transferee has acquired a title by adverse possession and that the transferred land should be 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 improvement effected to the land which the Deputy commissioner may deem fair and equitable. 6. From a bare perusal of the section, it would be evident that before the application can be entertained two conditions percedent them for must be fulfilled, namely: (a) that a transfer has been made by a number of Scheduled Tribes in favour of person wrong or may not be a another number of Scheduled Tribes and (b) such transfer has been made in violation of the provisions of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. 7. In this case, both the parties are members of the Scheduled Tribes. In the year 1944, when the transaction took place, there was no embargo on the part of the father of the respondents No. 4 to 7 to execute a deed of sale in favour of the father of the petitioner who was a member of the Scheduled Tribes. Such embargo was put by an amending Act, 1947. 8. In this view of the matter, the said transfer was not violative of the provisions of Sec. 46 of the Act. 9. The reasonings of the respondents 2 and 3 sic to the effect that the Scheduled Area Regulation, 1969 was given retrospective effect, are unsustainable inasmuch as the concerned respondents while considering the application under Sec. 71-A of the Act was bound to consider as to whether the transfer which is sought to be annulled was made in violation of the provisions of Sec. 46 of the Act or any other provisions of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. 10. Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (Amendment) Act, 1947 was not given retrospective effect and thus the respondents No. 2 and 3 were obliged to consider the application on the basis of law as it existed in the year 1944, i.e. when the transaction took place. Non consideration of the aforementioned relevant fact amounts to misdirection in law. 11. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 17-4-1989 (Annexure-2) and order dated 19-5-1990 (Annexure-3) are quashed. Let a writ of certiorari be issued accordingly. However in the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.