ORDER Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated the 20th of April, 1999 passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in SAR Revision No. 128 of 1998, whereby the learned Commissioner, has allowed the revision application filed by the private respondents Ashok Munda and others, and set aside the orders passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Khunti and also the appellate order passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi. 3. The facts in short are that the petitioner filed an application under Section 242 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, for restoration of possession of the lands measuring 67 decimals, appertaining to a plot No. 114, 162 and 168 of Khata No. 159 situated in Village Bandu, P.S. Arki, District, Ranchi, before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khunti. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Khunti allowed the application filed by the petitioner holding that Mundari Khutkatti, lands cannot be transferred to any person in view of Section 240 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and the respondents are illegally occupying the same in violation of Section 240 of the CNT Act, and directed for restoration of possession of lands in question in favour of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order of the SDO dated 28.11.1996, the respondent Nos. 4 to 7, filed appeals before the Additional Collector. The said appeals were also dismissed by the Additional Collector by order as contained in Annexure-2 and 2/1 after affirming the findings of the SDO. 4. Thereafter, the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 filed a Revision before the Commissioner against the said orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the Additional Collector. The learned Commissioner by impugned order dated 20.4.1999 as contained in Annexure-3, allowed the revision application and set aside the orders passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present application. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land being Mundari Khutkatti lands was originally recorded, as such, in the record of right, in the name of Sukhnath Babu, who was Mundari Khutkattidari and upon his death, it stood in the names of his sons Sikar Babu and Gopal Babu, Gopal Babu died issueless. 5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land being Mundari Khutkatti lands was originally recorded, as such, in the record of right, in the name of Sukhnath Babu, who was Mundari Khutkattidari and upon his death, it stood in the names of his sons Sikar Babu and Gopal Babu, Gopal Babu died issueless. Upon death of Sikar Babu his two sons Dubraj Babu Munda and Thakur Babu Munda came in possession of the said lands by inheritance. Thakur Babu Munda died issueless and Dubraj Babu Munda died living behind the petitioner. It is submitted that the learned Commissioner erred in holding that the Mundari Khutkattidari settled the lands to the respondents by Sada deeds and thereafter the revision petitioners converted the said lands into the Korkar lands. 6. The learned Commissioner held that there as nothing which can disprove the contention of the revision petitioner that they had converted the lands into Korkar lands after taking settlement from Mundari Khutkattidari. Thus no provision of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act had been contravened and, therefore, the lands in question was not liable to be restored. 7. It has not been disputed that the lands in question was recorded in the records of rights as Mundari Khutkatti lands. 8. Section 240 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act clearly bars the transfer of any portion of Kundari Khutkatti tenancy by sale or otherwise except in the manner or purpose prescribed and described under the said provision of the Act. 9. From the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner, it appeals that she has totally failed to take into consideration, the restrictions on transfer of Mundari Khutkattidari tenancy provided under Section 240 of the CNT Act. 10. No Mundari Khutkatti tenancy is transferable by a sale whether in execution of the decree or order of a Court or otherwise in terms of Section 240 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. 11. 10. No Mundari Khutkatti tenancy is transferable by a sale whether in execution of the decree or order of a Court or otherwise in terms of Section 240 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. 11. The respondents might have come in possession of the lands in question by taking settlement of the same by Sada deeds and might have converted the lands into Korkar as held by the revisional Court, but that itself comes within the mischief of Section 240 of the CNT Act and, as such, the transfer of the laws in question by settlement, if any was in violation of Section 240 of the Act and, therefore, was not permissible under the law. 12. In view of my discussion and findings above, the order as contained in Annexure-3, dated 20.4.1999, passed by the respondent No. 1 cannot be sustained in law. 13. Accordingly, this application is allowed and the order contained in Annexure-3 by the respondent No. 1 i.e., the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, is hereby quashed and the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khunti dated 28.11.1996 contained in Annexure-1 is hereby restored.