By Court.- Respondent No.5 filed an application under Section 71-A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act') before Special Officer, Ranchi claiming restoration of an area of land, measuring 33 decimals comprising within R.S. Plot No. 192 under Khata No. 87 of village Malti, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi against Sheikh Bhikhu, the deceased father of petitioner no. 1. This claim was made on the ground that land was taken possession of by fraudulent means after administering wine to Respondent No 5. Opposite Party i.e. father of the petitioner, herein, after putting his appearance before Special Officer claimed the land on the basis of mutual exchange in the year 1940 in lieu of his land, being P.S. Plot No. 626 under Khata No.6 and R.S. Plot No. 1367 under Khata No. 64 of village Malti, measuring total area 30.5 decimals. It was also contended that a Pucca construction with boundary wall was raised in the year 1940 itself at the cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the land claimed by Respondent No.5. After holding an enquiry and recording evidence of the Civil Engineer, Respondent No.4 vide order dated 29th March, 1986 validated the transfer under proviso 2nd of Section 71-A of the Act and directed the Opposite Party i.e. petitioner's father to give land of equal value to Respondent No. 5 by executing registered deed in his favour. While passing this order, it was held that substantial structure was constructed prior to year 1969. 2. Respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal before Additional Collector, Ranchi, registered as S.A.R. Appeal No. 33R 15/ 1987 - 89. In the meanwhile, father of petitioner no. 1 died. Petitioner No. 1 was substituted as legal representative. The appellate authority vide his order dated 21st November, 1986 allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the Special Officer with a direction to determine the factum of construction of substantial structure by making a local visit on spot and record his finding. 3. Special Officer, after the remand of the case, fixed various dates, as is evident from the record but without conducting local inspection, as directed by the appellate authority, passed the final order on 28th November, 1990 for restoration of land. 4. Petitioner preferred an appeal against this order passed by the Special Officer on 28th November, 1990 before the Additional Collector, Ranchi, which came to be registered as SAR. 4. Petitioner preferred an appeal against this order passed by the Special Officer on 28th November, 1990 before the Additional Collector, Ranchi, which came to be registered as SAR. Appeal No. 35R 15/1991-92. The appellate authority vide his order dated 7th September, 1994, after hearing the parties, held that exchange should be validated under the proviso to Section 71-A of the Act and directed the petitioner to execute a registered deed of sale in respect of 2% decimals of land. In the meanwhile, petitioner executed the sale deed and presented the same before the Special Officer in pursuance to the direction of the appellate authority. 5. Respondent No.5, however, preferred a revision before the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur, Ranchi, against the order dated 7th September, 1994 passed by the appellate authority, which came to be registered as SAR. Revision No. 338 of 1994. Revisional authority has passed impugned order on 20th April, 1999 allowing the revision by setting aside the order of the appellate authority and directed restoration of land in favour of Respondent No.5. 6. Notice of this writ application was directed to be served upon Respondent No. 5. He was duly served and registered A/D evidencing service is on record. None appears on behalf of Respondent No.5. He is, accordingly, set ex parte and petition is heard in his absence. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has challenged impugned order on variety of grounds. The main contention raised is that the revisional authority has entertained document i.e. Sada deed of exchange, said to be executed on 27th November, 1996 between father of the petitioner and Sukhi Oraon in the revisional court without any notice to the petitioner, herein, and this document has been relied upon while passing the impugned order. 8. Petitioner has specifically averred in Paras-24 to 26 that this document was accepted by the revisional authority at the back of the petitioner and has been made the basis for passing the impugned order. 9. From the perusal of the order of the revisional authority, it appears that this document was produced in the revisional court. The revisional authority, at page-7, has recorded that the petitioner has filed a Sada deed of exchange executed on 27th November, 1996. None of the authorities i.e. the Court of first instance and appellate court referred to this document. From the perusal of the order of the revisional authority, it appears that this document was produced in the revisional court. The revisional authority, at page-7, has recorded that the petitioner has filed a Sada deed of exchange executed on 27th November, 1996. None of the authorities i.e. the Court of first instance and appellate court referred to this document. It is only for the first time reference is made to this document in the revisional court, which goes to establish the contention of the petitioner that the document was accepted at the revisional stage. The order impugned further reveals that this document has been made the basis for setting aside the order of the appellate authority. 10. As a matter of fact, the revisional court has relied upon this document to disbelieve the testimony of the witnesses whose statements were recorded before Special Officer and set aside the findings of the courts below in regard to existence of substantial construction over the land. 11. Apart from other contentions raised by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the revisional authority is liable to be set aside only on the ground that he has accepted documentary evidence in the revisional court and the same has been relied upon without being provided in evidence in any manner and without providing any opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the said document. 12. As noticed above, entire basis of the impugned order is this document. Petitioner has not been provided any opportunity to admit or deny the same in any manner. This writ, accordingly, succeeds, order impugned is, hereby, set aside and case is remanded to the Special Officer to hold a de novo enquiry in regard to existence and validity of Sada deed of exchange of the year 1996 and also the existence of substantial construction on the plot. The Special Officer shall hold an enquiry in presence of the parties, after putting them to notice, and pass afresh order. Till afresh orders are passed, status quo, as exists on spot, shall be maintained.