JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners have challenged the order as contained in Annexure-6 dated 24.5.1980 in SAR Case No. 13 of 1979 passed by the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi, directing the restoration of land pertaining the R.S. Plot No. 378 under Khata No. 5, area 0.99 acres, situated at Village Bhandra, P.S. Bero, District Ranchi, in favour of respondent Nos. 5 and 6, the order as contained in Annexure-7 dated 27.5.1986 passed by the Addl. Collector, Ranchi, in SAR Appeal No. 266 of 1980-1981, dismissing the appeal, filed by these petitioners and the order contained in Annexure-8 dated 14.7.1986 in Ranchi Revenue Revision No. 316 of 1986, passed by the Commissioner, dismissing the revision application, filed by these petitioners. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the land bearing R.S. Plot No. 378 under Khata No. 5 measuring 0.99 acres situated at Village Bhandra, P.S. Bero, District Ranch! stands recorded in R.S. record of, right in the name of Arjun Gorait, who voluntarily surrendered his land by registered deed of surrender on 31.7.1936 to the land lady namely, Smt. Sundri Kuar. After the surrender of the said land it was settled in favour of the forefather of the petitioners, namely, Budhu Mahto by executing deed of settlement. 4. It is said that the settle Budhu Mahto came in possession thereof and constructed a residential house over the said land. After the death of Budhu Mahto his son Bhubneshwar Mahto succeeded him so long he was alive and remained in possession of the land in question and after the death of Bhubneshwar Mahto the writ petitioners succeeded their father and are in peaceful possession of the land in question. It is said that they have dug two pucca wells on the land and are growing paddy. Rents in respect of the land in question was being paid to the land lady prior to vesting and after vesting rents are being realized by the State of Bihar from the petitioners. The petitioners claimed Chapparbandi right over the land in question, as Chapparbandi rent in respect of the standing structure was being realized by the State. 5. It appears that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 filed an application under Section 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, against the petitioner Nos. I to 3 and father of the petitioner Nos. The petitioners claimed Chapparbandi right over the land in question, as Chapparbandi rent in respect of the standing structure was being realized by the State. 5. It appears that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 filed an application under Section 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, against the petitioner Nos. I to 3 and father of the petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 for restoration of the land in question which was registered as SAR Case No. 13 of 1979. The Special Officer by its order dated 24.5.1980 contained in Annexure-6, passed the order for restoration of the aforesaid land in question in favour of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein. The petitioners thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, which was dismissed by order as contained in Annexure-7 and then Revision filed before the Commissioner by the petitioners was also dismissed by order as contained in Annexure-8. 6. As stated earlier these three orders passed by the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, the appellate order by the Additional Collector and the revisional order by the Commissioner are under challenge in this application. 7. In support of their case the petitioners have annexed the copy of the registered deed of surrender dated 31.7.1936 as Annexure-1. the copy of the deed of settlement as Annexure-2, the copies of the jamindari and Government rent receipt as Annexure-3 series and the copies of the Chapparbandi rent receipt as Annexure-4 series to the present writ application. 8. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 but a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 sworn by the special Area Regulation Officer, Ranch!. 9. It appears from the order passed by the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi as contained in Annexure-6, that the Special Officer has held that the opposite parties, i.e, the petitioners herein failed to prove by any evidence regarding the surrender of the land in favour of the jamindar and also the settlements of the said land in favour of the opposite parties. It appears that these petitioners did not file the registered deed of surrender and also the deed of settlement before the Special Officer. Accordingly, the Special Officer ordered for restoration of the land in question in favour of respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 10. It appears that these petitioners did not file the registered deed of surrender and also the deed of settlement before the Special Officer. Accordingly, the Special Officer ordered for restoration of the land in question in favour of respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 10. From the order dated 27.5.1986, as contained in Annexure-7 passed by the appellate Court, i.e. the Additional Collector, Ranchi it appears that at the appellate stage these petitioners filed certified copies of the surrender deed as well as the deed of settlement and some rent receipts. 11. As it appears that the appellate Court dismissed the appeal holding that since the registered deed of surrender and the deed of settlement were of the same date, i.e. of 31.7.1936 and as such were void. He also held that he did not believe of settlement but no cogent reason has been assigned for rejection of those two documents. 12. From perusal of the order dated 14.7.1986 passed by the learned Commissioner as contained in Annexure-8 it appears that the learned Commissioner in a very slip short manner, by a perfunctory order has dismissed the revision application. The learned Commissioner has not applied his judicial mind before dismissing the revision application. 13. I find that, when the documents were brought on record by these petitioners before the appellate Court, i.e. the Additional Collector it was incumbent upon him to consider the same in its right perspective and then he ought to have given his own findings in accordance with law but as it appears that the appellate Court without assigning any cogent reason has held that those two documents i.e. the deed of surrender and the deed of settlement were void documents. The approach of the appellate Court as well as the Revisional Court cannot be said to be legal and valid. 14. Though the writ petitioners have annexed the copied of the deed of surrender and the deed of settlement etc. but this Court has refrained itself in giving any findings on appreciation of evidence. It is desirable that the Courts below should consider those documents and give their findings in accordance with law. 15. Accordingly, this application is allowed. 14. Though the writ petitioners have annexed the copied of the deed of surrender and the deed of settlement etc. but this Court has refrained itself in giving any findings on appreciation of evidence. It is desirable that the Courts below should consider those documents and give their findings in accordance with law. 15. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The order as contained in Annexure-7 and 8 passed by the appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority, i.e. the Additional Collector and the Commissioner, Ranchi are hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the appellate Court for fresh consideration of the case on its merit after considering the entire documents on record and after giving reasonable opportunity for hearing to both the parties. 16. Since the matter is sufficiently old and, therefore, the appellate Court is directed to dispose of the appeal preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 17. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.