ORDER Ajit Kumar Sinha, J. The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 24.4.2001 vide which the land recorded in the last Cadastral Survey of 1908 and Revisional Survey of 1935 has been restored to the respondent Nos.5 & 6. 2. The facts in brief are stated as under:- The grand father of the petitioner namely Medu Kalal purchased land of C.S. Khata No.87, plot No.224 with an area of 7.65 acres of land from the earstwhile landlord namely late Lal Durga Pratap Nath Shah Deo on 15.3.1906 for a valuable consideration and in consequence thereto they came in possession of the entire area from the date of purchase. According to the petitioner the land was raiyati land settled with the grand father of the petitioner and the same was recorded in the name of grand father of the petitioner in Cadestral Survey of right of 1908. The land in question was Belagan in survey record of right and a rent of Rs.4 Annas was fixed by the land lord payable to the Pahan and Mahto of the village by the settlee every year and the amount was utilized in dinner of Kolho Puja by the Mahto and Pahan every year. 3. The Pahan and Mahto filed a regular rent suit also being Case No.140 of 1923-24 claiming yearly rent of the land which was allowed on 15.9.1923 and the grand father of the petitioner paid the yearly rent of Rs.4 Annas 5 and this practice continued till the filing of the case in 1985-86. The nature of tenancy was ancestral and heritable and this incidence cannot be changed as per record of rights. During the revisional survey of 1935 the land has been recorded in the name of the father of the petitioner. Pahan of the village claiming the land to be as Gairahi had challenged it through Tanaja case No.29 dated 23.1.1933 which was decided in favour of the petitioner’s ancestor on 22.2.1933 by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Ranchi. 4. During the revisional survey of 1935 the land has been recorded in the name of the father of the petitioner. Pahan of the village claiming the land to be as Gairahi had challenged it through Tanaja case No.29 dated 23.1.1933 which was decided in favour of the petitioner’s ancestor on 22.2.1933 by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Ranchi. 4. On 16.9.1985 the respondent Nos.5 & 6 filed a petition under Section 71 A C.N.T.Act in the Court of the Special Officer, S.A.R., Ranchi as S.A.R.Case No.144/85-86 for restoration of possession of the land in proceeding namely C.S. Plot No.224 of Khata No.87 area 7.65 on the ground that the petitioner has taken possession forcibly in the year 1975. On such petition being filed the learned Special officer, Ranchi suo motu converted the proceeding under Section 48 A of the C.N.T. Act and an exparte order was passed by the learned Special Officer restoring the land to respondent No.5 and 6 on 23.8.86. 5. The petitioner being aggrieved with the Order dated 23.8.86 filed an appeal before the learned Addl. Collector, Ranchi being Misc. Appeal No.102/1986 who after hearing the parties remanded the case to the learned Special officer, SAR Ranchi on 11.3.87 to make further enquiries about the following:-(1) How settlement was done by the ex-landlord, (2) How the name of non-Tribal member was entered in survey record, (3) Whether the case comes u/s 48 or u/s 71 A C.N.T.Act, (4)Payment of money by non-tribal to the Pahan for Bhoot Puja and (5) Whether the certificate proceeding filed by Pahan for the recovery of Puja money was correct or not. That after remand the petitioner appeared in the Court of the Special officer, S.A.R., who after examining three witnesses of the respondent No.5 and 6 only passed his final order on 27/29.5.90 without giving any opportunity to be heard to the petitioner in spite of the prayer made to the learned Special Officer. 6. The learned Special Officer did not apply his judicial mind on the five points raised by the learned Additional Collector, Ranchi in his order dated 11.3.87. 6. The learned Special Officer did not apply his judicial mind on the five points raised by the learned Additional Collector, Ranchi in his order dated 11.3.87. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 27/29.5.90 again filed appeal before the appellate forum as appeal No.21 R15 of 90-91 which was heard by respondent No.3 The respondent No.3 having given due consideration of the case of the respective parties perusing the orders passed by his subordinate court and after examining the documents and evidence on record came to a conclusion that the lands have been recorded in the name of the ancestors of the appellant and there has been no transfer of lands from the respondent to the appellants. It also held that as there has been no violation of any provision of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act the lands can not be restored either u/s 71 A of the C.N.T. Act or u/s 48 of the C.N.T. Act even if there was any arrear of rent payable by the appellant the proceeding can not be initiated u/s 71 A or section 48 of the C.N.T. Act. In the aforesaid facts and findings the respondent No.3 allowed the appeal of the appellant and set aside the orders of the lower Court by his order dated 22.1.97. Against the order dated 22.1.97 the respondent Nos.5 and 6 preferred a revision before respondent No.2 as Revision SAR Revision No.100/97. 7. The respondent No.2 heard the Revision Petition and without considering or dealing with the facts and findings of the appellate order and without even referring to the evidence and the reasoning therein held that in earlier times there were large number of Adivasis in villages and thus the religious practice was easily in use as per the customs, but in the present changed circumstances the old religious practice has reduced and was difficult to continue. It also held that the land was for Bhoot Puja of tribals and was in possession of the Pahans. Accordingly the order passed by the respondent No.3 on 22.1.1997 was set aside and a direction was issued to restore the land to the respondent Nos.5 and 6 vide its impugned order dated 24.4.2001, which is under challenge. 8. According to the respondents the land in question even though not mentioned as Gairahai land still it was held to be treated as Gairahai or religious lands of tribals. 8. According to the respondents the land in question even though not mentioned as Gairahai land still it was held to be treated as Gairahai or religious lands of tribals. This type of land, according to them, is made available to the Pahan/Mahto of the village for Bhoot Puja and thus it belongs to all the villagers. The respondents have further submitted that the Commissioner in his revisional jurisdiction rightly held that there is no provision of transfer of this land and jamabandi or khata or this type of land cannot be opened or created in the name of anybody and according to them it relates to the customary law of Oraons and thus it could not be sold unless the proof against records of rights are produced. Thus, the thrust of the argument of both the revisional authority as well as the respondents is that even though there is no provision of law but the same was based on the customary law and customary arrangements of the tribals or Bhoot Puja and it was in this background that the revisional authority directed restoration of the disputed land in question in favour of the Chamru Pahan and others while setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Court. 9. I have considered the rival submissions as well as the arguments of both sides and I find that the learned Commissioner in his revisional jurisdiction has not even been able to indicate as to which provision of C.N.T. Act has been violated by the writ petitioner herein. In absence of violation of any provision of C.N.T. Act the direction to restore the land either under Section 71-A of the C.N.T. Act or under Section 48 of the C.N.T. Act is on the face of it illegal and unsustainable. Even if there has been any order with regard to the payment of rent by the writ petitioner, the proceedings, in any case, could not have been initiated under Section 71-A and/or under Section 48 of the Chhotanagupr Tenancy Act. The forefathers of the petitioner were well recorded in the Cadastral survey record of right. Learned Additional Collector, Ranchi rightly held that in the Rent Suit Case No.140 R8 of 1923-24 Sk.Medu Kalal was directed to pay the rent amount to the private respondent Chamru Pahan vide order dated 19.9.1923. The forefathers of the petitioner were well recorded in the Cadastral survey record of right. Learned Additional Collector, Ranchi rightly held that in the Rent Suit Case No.140 R8 of 1923-24 Sk.Medu Kalal was directed to pay the rent amount to the private respondent Chamru Pahan vide order dated 19.9.1923. Thus, it is even otherwise clear that the lands were recorded in the name of the ancestor of the writ petitioner and there was no transfer of land from the respondents to the appellant. The basic requirement to invoke Section 71-A of the C.N.T. Act is that there has to be a transfer of land on a aboriginal raiyat to a non-aboriginal without prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner and in the instant case in absence of transfer of land the question of invoking Section 71-A read with Section 46 does not arise. The revisional authority further ordered to convert suo motu Section 71-A petition to Section 48 of the C.N.T. Act which, in any case, applies to restrictions on the transfer of Bhuinhari land. 10. The following papers by way of evidence were presented before the Court below in support of the contention raised by the petitioner:- 1.Xerox copy of Sale Deed dated 15.3.1906 executed by Lal Durga Nath Sahdeo in favour of Medu Mian. 2.Xerox copy of Khatian of Cadestral Survey Khata No.87 bearing C.S. Plot No.224 area 7.65 acres. 3.Xerox copy of Tanaja and order dated 22.2.1933 filed by Mangra Pahan against Sahamad Mian. 4.Xerox copy of R.S. record of rights of Khata No.85 plot No.289 and 290 area 7.27 acres in the name of Sahmad Mian son of Medu Mian. 5.Xerox copy of R.S. map. 6.Xerox copy of petition in rent suit case No.140 R 8 of 1923-24 filed by Chamru Pahan against Sk. Medu Kalal and order of R.S.D.C. dated 19.9.1923. 7.Xerox copy of rent realization receipt as per order of R.S.D.C. dated 19.9.1923. 8.Xerox copy of rent receipts of Khata No.85 paid by Muddin Mian and his father Sahamad Mian and granted by Langoa Pahan, Sukra Pahan and Others. From the perusal of the aforesaid papers filed by the appellants it appears that the lands have been recorded in the name of Sahamad Mian and the petition filed by Mangra Pahan was recorded by the then A.S.C. vide order dated 22.2.1933. From the perusal of the aforesaid papers filed by the appellants it appears that the lands have been recorded in the name of Sahamad Mian and the petition filed by Mangra Pahan was recorded by the then A.S.C. vide order dated 22.2.1933. From the perusal of the order of learned A.S.O. it appears that Sahamad Ali was found in possession of the lands and the name of the father of Sahamad Ali was recorded in the C.S. record of right. Therefore, the learned A.S.O. ordered that the name of Sahmat Ali maybe recorded in the R.S. record of rights and accordingly R.S. record of right stands in the name of Sahamat Mian. In the rent suit case No.140 R 8 of 1923-24 Sk. Medu Kalal was directed to pay the rent amount to the plaintiff Chamru Pahan vide order dated 19.9.1923 by Rent Suit Deputy Collector. It is thus clear that the lands have been recorded in the name of the ancestors of the appellants and there has been no transfer of lands from the respondents to the appellants. The respondents have not been able to indicate as to which provision of C.N.T. Act has been violated by the appellants. As there has been no violation of any provision of C.N.T. Act the lands cannot be restored either u/s 71-A of the C.N.T. Act or u/s 48 of the C.N.T. Act. Even if there has been any arrear of rent to be paid by the appellants the proceedings cannot be initiated u/s 71-A or Section 48 of the C.N.T. Act. 11. In the instant case the document i.e. the cadastral survey Record of right shows that the land in question has been recorded in the name of the grand father of the petitioner namely Medu Kalal in 1908, the land in question has never been held and possessed by the aboriginals and thus no question of illegal dispossession of the Adivasi raiyat from his raiyati land negativing the application of the provision of C.N.T. Act arises. The R.S. record of right has been prepared in the name of the father of the petitioner namely Sahamat Mia as raiyat against which Mangra Pahan had filed Tonaja which has been rejected by the learned A.S.O. on 22.2.1933 directing the preparation of Khata in the name of the father of the petitioner and hence there is no violation of the provision of C.N.T. Act and the order of learned Assistant Settlement Officer dated 22.2.1933 was not challenged and, thus, it has attained finality. It is relevant to point out that the said Mangra Pahan had earlier filed a suit before the Rent Collector, Ranchi claiming rent from the father of the petitioner, which was allowed in R.S. suit No.140 R of 1923-24 on 19.9.1923 therefore the matter has already been decided about 80 years back and thus the respondent No.5 and 6 are only entitled for rent as per the direction given. 12. Even otherwise the restoration application u/s 71-A of the C.N.T. Act in the year 1985-86 is highly belated. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Mangal Oraon v. Mira Nayak (Smt.) & ors., as reported in (2000) 5 SCC 141 at Para 16 while considering the issue of delay and limitation in invoking Section 71-A for restoration held as under:- “……………..Merely because Section 71-A commences with the words “If at any time…….” it cannot be taken to mean that those powers could be exercised without any point of time-limit, as in this case after nearly about forty years unmindful of the rights of the parties acquired in the meantime under the ordinary law and the law of limitation. We consider it, therefore, inappropriate to countenance any such contentions in these proceedings.” Again in the case of Fulchand Munda V. State of Bihar & ors., as reported in 2008(1) SCALE Page-718, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering a similar issue held that Section 71-A of the C.N.T. Act could be attracted only in case the Deputy Commissioner finds that the impugned transfer was made in contravention of Section 46 or any other provision of the C.N.T. Act. It also held that even though there is no period of limitation prescribed for exercising the power under Section 71-A of the C.N.T. Act by the Deputy Commissioner, the party effected is called upon to approach the appropriate authority or the power has to be exercised by the Deputy Commissioner within a reasonable period of time. 13. The admitted fact remains that the petitioner herein is going on depositing the oral rent to the village priest who is holding the Office for the same and rent receipts were being regularly issued to the petitioner every year and this practice is continuing since time immemorial. Unfortunately, the learned Revisional Authority vide its impugned order has not even considered the aforesaid legal aspect to the matter and also the admitted factual position and erroneously invoked the provisions which were not applicable at all nor he has pointed violation of any provision of the C.N.T. Act. Thus the summary order for restoration of possession of land to respondent No.5 & 6 is on the face of it erroneous, illegal and unsustainable in the eye of law. 14. This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed and the impugned order dated 24.4.2001, passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, in S.A.R. Revision No. 100 of 1997, is hereby set aside and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 22.1.97 passed in appeal No.21 R 15 of 199—91 is restored. There will be no order as to costs.