By Court.- This petition has been filed by Radheshyam Mahto against the order dated 15th December, 1998 passed by Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in S.A.R. Revision No. 210 of 1996 rejecting the claim of the petitioner with regard to the land, bearing Plot No. 421, Khata No. 87, village Bargawa, measuring an area of 11 decimals. 2. Briefly stated the facts, giving rise to present proceedings, are that Respondent No. 6 filed an application before the Special Officer, Respondent No.4, under Section 71-A of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. Special Officer vide his order dated 15th June, 1971 allowed the application and directed restoration of land in favour of Respondent No.6. This order came to be challenged by Madan Mohan Gope, son of petitioner, against whom direction was issued in appeal before the appellate authority. Appellate authority i.e. Respondent no. 3 vide his order dated 10th February, 1996 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Special Officer. This order became subject matter of challenge before the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in SAR. Revision No. 210 of 1996. This revision was preferred by Respondent No.6. The revisional authority vide his impugned order concurred with the findings of the Special Officer and set aside the order of the appellate authority. 3. It is relevant to notice that the present petitioner, who happens to be father of Madan Mohan Gope, who was a party to the appeal, filed an application seeking intervention in the matter before the revisional authority. Basing his claim on Sada Hukumnama said to have been executed in the year 1943 for the settlement of the plot of land. He further relied upon decree of Civil Court said to be passed in his favour on 29th May, 1995. Civil Court in the, aforesaid decree had injected Respondent No.6, herein from interfering with the possession of the present petitioner over the Plot No. 421. 4. The revisional authority, on consideration of the facts projected by the present petitioner, held that the decree was secured from the Civil Court without impleading the Deputy Commissioner as a party-respondent and in view of the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 46(a) of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, no proceedings lie without impleading the Deputy Commissioner as party. Thus, this decree has no value in law. 5. Thus, this decree has no value in law. 5. As regards the claim of the present petitioner that he is entitled to hold the land on the basis of settlement with the ex-landlord through Sada Hukumnama dated 7th July, 1943, revisional authority further held that this Sada Hukumnama cannot be considered to be valid in view of the registered documents. Revisional authority has also rendered specific finding that Madan Mohan Gope had taken over the land from Respondent No.6 in the year 1987 under the garb of an agreement executed on 4th December, 1987. Thus the transfer of land had been held to be in contravention to the provisions of Section 46 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. Revisional authority consequently ordered restoration of possession in favour of Respondent No.6. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. This petition is liable to be dismissed on the following grounds:- (i) Madan Mohan Gope, who was party before all the forums, has not been impleaded as a party to this petition. (ii) Restoration has been ordered by the revisional authority from Madan Mohan Gope. He being the necessary party to the present petition, this petition is incompetent in his absence. (iii) There are factual findings of fact arrived at by the forums constituted under the provisions of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit as a Court of appeal and re-appraise the factual material to interfere in the findings arrived at by the competent authorities. For the reasons aforesaid, I chose not to interfere in the matter and this petition is, accordingly, dismissed.