JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J. 1. In this application, the petitioners have challenged the Order dated 7.7.1997 contained in Annexure-5 passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi whereby the learned Commissioner, while exercising revisional powers under the Chhotangapur Tenancy Act, allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent No. 4 and set aside the order of the Special officer, S.A.R. dated 2.11.1976 rejecting the application for restoration filed under Section 71-A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act by the respondent No. 4 and also the appellant order dated 2.9.1985 by the Additional Collector dismissing the appeal of the respondent No. 4 filed against the order of the Special Officer. S.A.R. 2. From the impugned order, it appears that the learned Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi has held that admittedly according to the petitioner herein, the surrender of the land was made in between the years 1949 to 1954 through registered deeds but no permission of the Deputy Commissioner was taken in writing as envisaged under Section 72 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act which clearly lays down that such surrender of lands can only be made with the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner in writing. In this view of the matter, learned Commissioner held that the surrender in question was made in contravention of Section 72 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and therefore, the same was void. 3. In that view of the matter, the learned Commissioner held that surrender of lands made in between 1949 to 1954 were against the provisions of Section 72 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. 4. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, though tried to assail the order and Judgment of the learned Commissioner, but he could not satisfactorily reply to the said question as to how any surrender of land made by a Raiyat in between 1949 to 1954 without the prior sanction of the Deputy Commissioner in writing would be valid. 5. Accordingly, I hold that the learned Commissioner rightly held that such surrender was illegal since prior sanction of the Deputy Commissioner in writing was not taken by the said transferee. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the order of the learned Commissioner. Consequently, having found no merits in this writ application, the same is dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs.