JUDGMENT In this writ application the petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.6.1988 passed by the Respondent No.3 contained in Annexure-1, whereby the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, dismissed the application of the petitioners tiled under Section 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act for restoration of the lands in Khata No. 16, Plot No. 323, area 0.11 acres situated in Village Morhabadi, P.S. Bariatu district Ranchi and also the revisional order of the Commissioner dated 20.7.1998, contained in Annexure-4, allowing the revision application filed by the Respondent No.4 herein. 2. The facts in short are that with regard to the land mentioned above the petitioners had filed an application under section 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act before the Special Officer, S.A.R. for restoration of the same on the ground that the respondent no. 4 Augustin Surin got the above land transferred in his favour by fraudulent method on a sada sale deed. The said application was registered as S.A.R. Case No. 42/86-87. The notices were issued to the respondent no. 4 August in Surin, who on receipt of the notice filed his written statement contesting the claim of the applicants/writ petitioners. 3. The case of the respondent no. 4 is that both the parties are members of the Scheduled Tribes and the land in question was transferred by a registered sale deed after taking due permission of the Deputy Commissioner, who was the Competent Authority for that purpose under the Provisions of Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. Further case of the respondent no. 4 is that both the parties are resident of the area falling within the same police station and after the said transfer of the land he has constructed a building and, therefore, the land, which was legally and validly transferred in his name, cannot be restored to the applicants/writ petitioners under the provisions of Section 71 A of the C.N.T. Act. 4. 4. The Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation vide order as contained in Annexure-1 dated 24.6.1988, dismissed the petition under Section 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act holding that the applicant was given several opportunities to produce evidence in support of his claim that the opposite party was not a resident of Village Morhabadi but no such evidence was produced, on the other hand the opposite party established the fact that the land in question was sold to him after taking due permission of the Deputy• Commissioner under Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and, therefore, the provisions of Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act was not violated. 5. Against the said order of the Special Officer, the present writ petitioners filed appeal before the Additional Collector, Ranchi, which was registered as S.A.R. Appeal No. 32/88-89. The Additional Collector by order as contained in Annexure-2 dated 26.12.1991, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Special Officer and held that the respondent was not a permanent resident of the area falling within the same police station in which holding was situated and the required permission of the Deputy Commissioner was obtained by suppressing the fact about the permanent place of abode and according to the own admission of the respondent he was living at Ranchi since 1972 because of his posting at that place as Government Officer, therefore, he cannot claim that he was a permanent resident of Ranchi. Accordingly, the Additional Collector held that the provisions of Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act was violated in getting the lands in question transferred. 6. The respondent no. 4, herein, filed revision before the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur, Ranchi, which was registered as S.A.R. Revision No. 41/1992. The Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi by terms of the order dated 20.7.1998, contained in Annexure-4, allowed the revision application and set aside the order passed by the appellate court, i.e. of the Additional Collector and held that the applications filed under Section 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act was not maintainable. It was further held that if the applicants/writ petitioners were aggrieved against the order granting permission by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act for transfer of the land in favour of the respondent no. It was further held that if the applicants/writ petitioners were aggrieved against the order granting permission by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act for transfer of the land in favour of the respondent no. 4 then they could have filed an application under Section 46(4)(a) of the C.N.T. Act for annulling the permission accorded by the Deputy Commissioner but they did not choose to do so. 7. The learned Commissioner by relying on the decision of Patna High Court in the cases reported in 1997 BLJR 161 , 1997 BLJR 168 and 1993 PLJR 473, held that when there was a specific provision under the Act then the general provisions of Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act for restoration of the land would not apply. Accordingly, he allowed the revision application and set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in appeal. 8. I have carefully gone through the judgments passed by all the aforesaid three courts, i.e. the Special Officer, the Appellate Court as well as of the learned Commissioner in revision. From the impugned order of the learned Commissioner, I find that he has rightly held that the Additional Collector, i.e. the Appellate Court wrongly interpreted the word permanent resident as place of birth and he wrongly held that the respondent no. 4 himself admitted that his place of birth was in the District of Gumla but he was residing at Morabadi in the district of Ranchi permanently. The Additional Collector was wrong in holding that since ancestor of the respondent no. 4 herein were of village Basia of the District of Gumla and, therefore, they cannot be said to be a permanent resident of Ranchi. The said finding of the Appellate Court was wrong and, therefore, the Commissioner rightly set aside the same. 9. On consideration of the entire facts and rival contentions of the parties, I am of the view that the land in question was legally and validly transferred in favour of the respondent no. 4 by these two petitioners after taking due permission of the Deputy Commissioner as envisaged under Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and there was no illegality in it. The learned Commissioner rightly allowed the revision application and set aside the order of the Additional Collector passed in appeal. 10. 4 by these two petitioners after taking due permission of the Deputy Commissioner as envisaged under Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and there was no illegality in it. The learned Commissioner rightly allowed the revision application and set aside the order of the Additional Collector passed in appeal. 10. In view of the discussions and findings above, by affirming the order of the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur, Ranchi dated 20.7.1998 (Annexure-4), I hold that there is no merit in this writ application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.