Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. In the instant writ application, prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Revisional order dated 20.6.1990 (Annexure-7) passed by the respondent No. 1, Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division in Revenue Revision No. 117/86, whereby the appellate order dated 21.2.1986 (Annexure-6) passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in Misc. Appeal No. 3 Rule 15 of 1985-86 has been set aside with the effect that the petition filed by the petitioner under Sec. 242 of the C.N.T. Act for restoration of the land of plot No. 262, 253 and 289 under khata No. 1 of village Chayadih measuring an area of 5.40 acres has been dismissed. 2. The application under Sec. 242 of the Act was filed by the petitioner claiming restoration of the land mentioned above against the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 contending, inter alia, that he had Mundari Khutkatti rights over the land in the proceeding and then in pursuant of the judgment of this Court in F.A. No. 257 of 1945 possession of the same had been delivered in his favour but subsequently the respondents created false and fabricated documents and fraudulently dispossessed him from the land. Proceeding of the said Restoration petition was registered as Case No. 13 of 1983-84 and tried by the Sub-divisional Officer, Khunti, Ranchi (respondent No. 3). On being noticed, the respondent No. 4 only appeared and filed show cause contending, inter alia, that Kalipado Mahto and Durga Charan Mahto (respondent Nos. 7 and 8) were actually in physical possession of the land under the proceeding. It was further stated that the petitioner was Mundari Khutkattidar of village Mardhan and not of village Chayadih and as such he was not entitled to claim restoration under Sec. 242 of the Act. It was further contended that after the delivery of possession in pursuance of the decree passed in F.A. No. 257 of 1945, the petitioner himself had settled the disputed lands with Ram Gopal Sahu and his wife Malti Devi by two registered deeds dated 13.2.1954 on a Salami of Rs. 700.00 and Rs. 2000.00 respectively. 3. It should be mentioned here that this Ram Gopal Sahu was respondent No. 1 in F.A. No. 257 of 1945. On the basis of such settlement, Ram Gopal Sahu remained in possession till 1970-71 and later on sold the same to respondent Nos. 700.00 and Rs. 2000.00 respectively. 3. It should be mentioned here that this Ram Gopal Sahu was respondent No. 1 in F.A. No. 257 of 1945. On the basis of such settlement, Ram Gopal Sahu remained in possession till 1970-71 and later on sold the same to respondent Nos. 7 and 8 by three registered deeds dated 13.3.1970 and 21.6.1979 and after that purchase Durga Charan Mahto and Kalipado Mahto respectively, the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were in possession and it was stated that since the land was never recorded as Mundari Khutkatti in the record of rights, therefore, provision of Sec. 242 of the Act has no application. 4. In view of the stands being taken by the respondent Respondent Nos. 4, 6, 7 and 8 were impleaded and they also filed written statement supporting the case of respondent No. 4. The respondent No. 3 after hearing the parties, vide order dated 7.5.1985 rejected the restoration application holding that there was no violation of Sec. 240 of the Act and that the lands were Bakast and not Mundari Khutkatti. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Respondent No. 2 contending, inter alia, that the lands were definitely a Mundari Khutkatti and the same has been pleaded by the respondent No. 1 Ram Gopal Sahu himself in Title Suit No. 67 of 1943 giving rise to F. A. No. 257 of 1945 and as such there is no scope for respondent No. 4 to challenge his own stand and he is estopped by law, 5. Against the order of respondent No. 3, appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the respondent No. 2 and in appeal the petition of restoration was allowed by setting aside the order of the S.D.O. holding that the land was Mundari Khutkatti belonging to the petitioner and he is entitled to get restoration under Sec. 242 of the Act. Then respondent No. 4 alone preferred Revision application before the respondent No. 2, which was registered as Ranchi Revenue Revision No. 117 of 1986 and by the impugned order as contained in Annexure-7, the appellate order was set aside and held that the restoration petition was not maintainable. 6. Some more facts are required to be stated for consideration of the dispute in issue. 6. Some more facts are required to be stated for consideration of the dispute in issue. The petitioner Thakur Ghanshyam Singh Munda is the successor-in-interest of Thakur Ram Jeevan Singh Munda of Village Mardhan and this Ram Jeevan Singh Munda was the grand father of Thakur Loknath Singh Munda son of Ram Lochan Singh Munda, who died in the life time of his father Ram Jeevan Singh Munda. The petitioner, Ghanshyam Singh Munda is the son of Thakur Loknath Singh Munda. Thus, the petitioner is the direct male descendant of Thakur Ram Jeevan Singh Munda. In Khewat No. 3 of village Chayadih his name was recorded ad tenure a holder. Madhu Singh Munda was the younger brother of Thakur Ram Jeevan Singh Munda and as per village custom prevailing amongst the Mundari community, inheritance was governed by the Rule of Male liniel primojeniture. Madhu Sudan Singh Munda was the younger brother of Thakur Ram Jeevan Singh Munda and as such he was given the land in Chayadih as Kharposh by his elder brother Thakur Ram Jeevan Singh Munda. During the life time of Madhu Sudan Singh Munda, he became arrears in debts with Jagarnath Sahu and as such in a Money Suit filed by Jagarnath Sahu against Madhu Sudan Singh, he got the entire C.S. Khewat No. 3 of Mouza Chayadih auctioned and he became the action purchaser. In Revisional Survey Operation in 1930, Jagarnath Sahu was recorded as receiver (Lagan Panewala) of rent for C.S. Khewat No. 3 of Chayadih and the Same was non-resumable. The same C.S. Khewat No. 3 was recorded in Revisional Survey in the name of Jagarnath Sahu and Ors. as R.S. Khewat No. 3 with entry in the remarks column that Jagarnath Sahu got it by auction purchase on 23.11.1916 in Case No. 57 of 1916 in between Jagarnath Sahu (Digridar) V/s. Madhusudan Singh Munda and that the land is Khutkatti i.e. the revenue can never be reduced nor enhanced. The said R.S. Khewat No. 3 in the name of Jagarnath Sahu and Ors. was recorded under the Manager of the Encumbered Estate Tamar Khewat No. 2 and as such a Title Suit No. 26 of 1932 was filed by Thakur Loknath Singh Munda father of the petitioner for declaration that Jagarnath Sahu and Ors. The said R.S. Khewat No. 3 in the name of Jagarnath Sahu and Ors. was recorded under the Manager of the Encumbered Estate Tamar Khewat No. 2 and as such a Title Suit No. 26 of 1932 was filed by Thakur Loknath Singh Munda father of the petitioner for declaration that Jagarnath Sahu and Ors. recorded Khewatdar of R.S. Khewat No. 3 cannot pay revenue direct to Tamar Estate Khewat No. 2 and this suit was decreed in favour of Loknath Singh Munda. When Madhusudan Singh Munda a Khorposhkar or of Chayadih died issueless some time in the year 1938, Ghanshyam Singh Munda of Mardan Estate filed Title Suit No. 67 of 1943 for restoration of Khorposh tenure from Gopal son of Jagarnath Sahu and four others in the Court of Sub Judge, Ranehi. The plaintiff of that suit lost in the original Court on the ground that entries of R.S. Khewat No. 3 was not resumable and those entries were conclusive proof of the facts stated in the respective column of the record of rights. Then the plaintiff i.e. the present petitioner filed an appeal before the High Court being F.A. No. 257 of 1945. The said appeal was allowed and it was held by the Appellate Court that as the land was given on Khorposh to the younger brother by Ram Jeevan Singh Munda then on his death it must come back to the original grantee. Only because it was mentioned as non resumable in the record of rights the same cannot take away the legal position that the land should come back to the original grantor as the grant was only for a limited purpose of Khorposh (maintenance) and the original Courts finding regarding non-resumable Khewat was held to be error of law. 7. After the decree was obtained in appeal, Ghanshyam Singh Munda resumed the land in dispute and then settled the same by two registered deeds No. 932 and 932 dated 13.2.1954 with Ram Gopal Sahu and his wife Malti Devi respectively and this Ram Gopal Sahu and Malti Devi in turn sold the land in question to Nuru Mahto and Ors., the respondents in the year 1970-71 by registered deed. All these settlements made by Ram Gopal Singh Munda had been stated to be forged and fabricated on the ground that he being Mundari Khumtkattida and the whole of the Estate of Mardan being a Mundari Khumtkatti Estate, settlement to non tribal were illegal and as such restoration has been claimed. This much is the history of the lands in question. 8. The Commissioner, revisional jurisdiction has gone deep into the matter and held that the land i.e. the Khewat in question is not a Mundari Khumtkatti, rather it was simply a Khutkattidar Khewat and hence Sec. 242 of the C.N.T. Act has got no applicability. 9. In the writ petition, while challenging the finding of the Commissioner, Mr. N.K. Prasad has submitted that the learned Commissioner has committed error of law in holding the Khewat to be Khutkattidar, which is unknown in the C.N.T. Act. According to Mr. Prasad, there is no scope of holding any tenure holder to be a Khutkattidar as there is no definition of tenure holder of being a Khutkattidar under the C.N.T. Act. There is definition of Khutkatti tenancy but not of Khewat or tenure holder under the C.N.T. Act, so the whole proposition of the Commissioner is bed in the eye of law. 10. His further submission is that although there was entry in the record of rights during the Cadestral Survey and in the Revisional Survey as Khutkatti alone, but Chayadih being a part and parcel of Mardan Estate and that Mardan Estate itself is a Mundari Khutkatti, then Chayadih becomes Mundari Khutkatti and not Khutkatti alone. This analogy had not been taken into consideration by the Commissioner in his order as contained in Annexure 7. 11. Mr. Debi Prasad, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents has totally supported the order of the Commissioner as contained in Annexure 7 and according to him, unless the record of rights absolutely shows the land to be Mundari Khutkatti, there is no application of Sec. 242 of the C.N.T. Act. 12. Averting such argument, Mr. N.K. Prasad has submitted that a Khutkatti land, if it is held by a Munda, it becomes automatically a Mundari Khutkatti as per the definition of Mundari Khutkatti under the C.N.T. Act. 13. Let us now consider the legal proposition as per the submissions made by the Senior counsel of both the parties. 12. Averting such argument, Mr. N.K. Prasad has submitted that a Khutkatti land, if it is held by a Munda, it becomes automatically a Mundari Khutkatti as per the definition of Mundari Khutkatti under the C.N.T. Act. 13. Let us now consider the legal proposition as per the submissions made by the Senior counsel of both the parties. Sec. 242 of the C.N.T. Act gives scope of ejectment of person unlawfully obtaining possession of Mundari Khutkatti tenancy. It has been specifically provided under this provision that such possession can be restored to the original land holder, if before such possession was obtained the record of rights was published or entered as a Mundari Khutkatti tenancy. Under Section 242 of the C.N.T. Act, there is nothing mentioned about the tenure holder or Khewat. There was also question as to when such sort of possession can be restored, whether limitation would be applicable or not. But, by a judgment of this Court as reported in 1987 B.L.T. page-173 Fago Mahto V/s. Commissioner, South Chotanagpur, it was held that no time limit has been prescribed under Section 242 for ejectment of persons unlawfully obtaining possession of a Mundari Khutkatti tenancy, Thus, in the present case, although possession has been taken long back in the year 1957 and the petition had been filed long after 12 years then also as held by this Court, the limitation would not be applicable in favour of the respondents. 14. Mardan village was definitely, a Mundari Khutkatti and there is no dispute regarding that. Now, whether an Estate being a Mundari Khutkattidari Estate can have any other land than the Estate free from Mundari Khutkatti or not is a question. Chayadih is definitely included within the Mardan Estate but an Estate holder might have different kinds of land within the Estate and Estate holder might have acquired some lands other than Khutkatti or even town land in urban areas so the analogy that an original Mundari Khutkattidar having an Estate can have only Mundari Khutkatti lands within the Estate has no bearing. He might have acquired other lands having no Khutkatti only because he is a Munda and the original Estate acquired by him was a Khutkatti land. He might have acquired other lands having no Khutkatti only because he is a Munda and the original Estate acquired by him was a Khutkatti land. It cannot be said that he cannot acquire any land other than Khutkatti and even if a simple Khutkatti land has been acquired and by elapse of time that become a tenure one and transform into a Khewat, it cannot be said that the same Khutkatti land also becomes a Mundari Khutkatti tenancy only. So, this analogy given by Mr. N.K. Prasad, Sr. Counsel for and on behalf of the petitioner has got no bearing. 15. Now, the next point comes in. The ejectment can only be granted under Sec. 242 of the C.N.T. Act, if before acquisition of possession by the so-called possessor the record of rights had been finally published as a Mundari Khutkatti tenancy. In the present case, nowhere there was any application of record of rights showing the land of Chayadih as Mundari Khutkatti rather it was recorded only as Khutkatti and non resumable. Although, by the previous suit, the record of rights of non resumability and by the latest judgment of the High Court in the First Appeal, the non resumable character has been held to be bad, but the fact remains that the land was never recorded as Mundari Khutkatti. Even after the previous Title Suit in the 30s, although the record of rights were ordered to be corrected, but no such correction was made at any time, but nowhere there was any question in the earlier suits as to the character of the land in question as Mundari Khutkatti. It was already been held to be a Khutkatti one but the same was held to be resumable one. 16. Mr. N.K. Prasad, by reference to Secs. 4 and 8 of the C.N.T., Act submitted that Raiyats having Khutkatti rights are included in the class of tenants including that of Mundari Khutkattidars but tenure holders who are also a class of tenants can never be a Khutkattidar, as there is no provision under the C.N.T. Act of tenure holder being a Khutkattidar but a Raiyat having Khutkatti rights are included in the class of tenants. His contention is that a tenure holder can never be a Khutkattidar as the same is unknown under the C.N.T. Act. 17. Definition of Khutkatti is very much there in the C.N.T. Act. His contention is that a tenure holder can never be a Khutkattidar as the same is unknown under the C.N.T. Act. 17. Definition of Khutkatti is very much there in the C.N.T. Act. A person who has acquired right to hold the land by reclaiming jungles and making it to a cultivable one, he becomes Khutkattidar. Although, Raiyats can be a Khutkattidar as is defined in the C.N.T. Act but regarding tenure holder this Khutkatti rights had not been considered or construed under the C.N.T. Act. But, now from the definition of Khutkattidar, if the proposition is taken that a person held land as a Khutkatti by reclaiming of jungles and by of efflux of time reclaiming of jungles he becomes a tenure holder then his original possession of the land as Khutkattidar can also be construed to make him a tenure holder Khutkattidar. Such position has not been defined in the C.N.T. Act, it is true, but there is no reason plausible as to why a tenure holder cannot be a Khutkattidar. 18. According to Mr. Debi Prasad, this question as to whether a tenure holder can also be a Khutkattidar or not came before this Court time and again and it was held that either it is a holding or tenure, if the original land was held as Khutkattidar then the same may be recorded in the record of rights as Khutkattidar tenancy. He has referred to a judgment of this Court as reported in Volume-XIV, PLT 457 Degan Mahto V/s. Kamakhya Narayan Singh. Similarly, in Volume-II, PLT 638 Jeo LalSingh V/s. Raja Wazir Narain Singh, it was held by the Court that entry in the Survey Khewat that a person has Khutkatti right means that he is a tenure-holder and not a raiyat. 19. Thus, in the present case, a Khewat has been defined showing having Khutkatti right and there is no illegality in the same. I have already held that record of rights never showed that the same is a Mundari Khutkatti, rather a Khutkatti alone and only because Chayadih is a part of the Mardan Estate, there cannot be any legal inference that Khewat issued regarding Chayadih land is also a Mundari Khutkatti because the Mardan Estate was held by a Munda. I have already held that record of rights never showed that the same is a Mundari Khutkatti, rather a Khutkatti alone and only because Chayadih is a part of the Mardan Estate, there cannot be any legal inference that Khewat issued regarding Chayadih land is also a Mundari Khutkatti because the Mardan Estate was held by a Munda. For restoration under Sec. 242 of the C.N.T. Act, pre-requisite is that there should be a record of rights mentioning the same to be a Mundari Khutkatti. Here that pre-requisite in missing. Now, whether there is scope of taking any evidence or inference regarding wrong entry in the record of rights is permissible in law or not is the main question. 20. It was held by this Court as reported in Volume 12, P.L.T. 125 Chamru Sahu v. Kanak Singh Munda that when a holding is recorded as Khutkatti then there is no power of Court to admit evidence to show that it was Mundari Khutkatti and such evidence, if recorded the same is a wrong admission of evidence. A Full Bench decision of this Court may be referred to in this connection being AIR (33) 1946 Patna 313 Tikait Srinibas Hukum Singh Deo V/s. Deoram Ganjhu and Ors. It was convassed in that case that such issuance of Khewat showing tenure holders at Khutkattidars are unknown under the C.N.T. Act as such, such tenure holder must be held to be a temporary holders of Khutkattidar, but it was held by the Full Bench in the following manner: Though there is no provision in the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act giving any permanent rights to Khutkattidar tenure-holders, yet it cannot be said that in every case where the Khutkattidars are entered in the Khewat as tenure holders, it must be held as a matter of law that they are merely temporary tenure-holders. The entry in the survey record of rights as to the nature of tenancy must be presumed to be correct. Where the entry in the survey record of rights shows that the recorded tenants were in possession of a tenure then a Khewat may be issued showing them as Khutkattidar tenure holder. Thus, the submission of Mr. N.K. Prasad that the Khewat issued as Khutkattidar should be construed as only a Raiyati Khutkattidari that too as Mundari Khutkattidari, have got no force. Thus, the submission of Mr. N.K. Prasad that the Khewat issued as Khutkattidar should be construed as only a Raiyati Khutkattidari that too as Mundari Khutkattidari, have got no force. Moreover, in a proceeding under Sec. 242 of the C.N.T. Act, such sort of convassing is not permissible, as already discussed above. 21 It was argued by Mr. N.K. Prasad, Sr. Counsel that the respondents in the earlier Title Suit regarding Kharposh had contended in the written statement that Chayadih was a Mundari Khutkatti Tenancy and as such they are estopped from deviating their stand. A written statement is not a public document. Moreover, defendant in a particular suit is permissible to take contrary and alternative please. The plea taken by the defendant in that suit had already been turned down by the judgment debtor in the First Appeal and when civil Courts decision had come up then the plea taken by the defendants have got no legal inference or estoppel. This plea was only taken feebly by the Sr. Counsel as a last resort. I do not find any force on such submission. 22. Thus, I do not find any force in the submission of Mr. N.K. Prasad that the learned Commissioner has committed error of law in dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner in the proceeding under Sec. 242 of the C.N.T. Act, when the basic requirements are not there, there is no scope of applicability of Sec. 240 of the C.N.T. Act regarding permission by the Deputy Commissioner and transfer of the land to a non tribal one. Hence, this writ petition has got no force and the same is dismissed. But, in the nature and circumstances of the case, no cost is awarded to either of the parties.