Judgment Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.-The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ, order or direction against the respondents to quash the order dated 26.6.2002 passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in S.A.R. Revision Case No. 78/99 vide which the possession was restored and the order of the Additional Collector was set aside. 2. The facts, in brief, are set out as under:- The present case relates to a land in the revisional survey khata No. 51 & 79 of village Gurgain, P.S. Ormanjhi, districtRanchi measuring about 21.61 acres and the same is recorded in the name of Sukar Pahan in the revisional survey' record of rights. According to petitioner Sukar Pahan had a brother Baija Pahan who was living separately. The petitioner has given a genealogical table to indicate the relation between the brother and the respondent No. 5 and the same is quoted as under:- 3. According to petitioners the respondent No.5 filed an application for restoration of the abovesaid land under Section 71-A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act before the Special Officer under Scheduled Area Regulation, 1969 against the present petitioner No.1 and the father of the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 on the ground that the land was in illegal possession of the petitioner in contravention to the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. The case was registered and numbered as SAR. Case No. 51/87. The petitioners filed their show cause stating that they were legal heirs and agnates of the recorded tenants Sukar Pahan and they were in possession of the land in question as heirs and successors and there has been no transfer of land. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No.5 is not the legal heir and thus he has no right to seek restoration of the land. The learned Special Officer vide its order dated 21.12.1991 ordered for restoration. An appeal was preferred by petitioner No. 1 and petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 before the Additional Collector, Ranchi and the same was registered and numbered as S.A.R. Appeal No.156/89 challenging the order dated 21.12.1991 and the learned Additional Collector after hearing both the sides set aside the order passed by the Special Officer and allowed the appeal vide order dated 25.11.1998. 4. 2 & 3 before the Additional Collector, Ranchi and the same was registered and numbered as S.A.R. Appeal No.156/89 challenging the order dated 21.12.1991 and the learned Additional Collector after hearing both the sides set aside the order passed by the Special Officer and allowed the appeal vide order dated 25.11.1998. 4. Respondent No.5 being aggrieved preferred a revision before the learned Court of Commissioner, South Chhota-nagpur Division, Ranchi challenging the order dated 25.11.98 and the same was registered and numbered as SAR. Revision No. 78/99. The learned Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi after hearing the parties allowed the revision and sot aside the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 25.11.98 while restoring the order dated 21.12.1991 passed by the Special Officer. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the order passed by the revisional authority dated 26.6.2002. 5. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the revisional authority failed to consider the ingredients of Section 71-A of the C.N.T. Act and passed the order which was beyond its jurisdiction. It has further been contended that the issue of Ghar Damad decided by the revisional authority was not within the scope of the revisional power and jurisdiction as laid down under Section 71-A of the C.N.T. Act. The counsel of the petitioner further submits that there was no transfer which has taken place between the parties and the present petitioners were in possession as they were the heirs and near agnates of the recorded tenants and they stepped into the shoes of recorded tenant after the death and thus the order of restoration passed by the respondent Commissioner is liable to be quashed. It has also been contended that respondent No. 5 was neither a raiyat nor an heir under the Munda Customary Law and as such he has no right to seek restoration under Section 71-A of the C.N.T. Act. 6. The counsel for private respondent No. 5 has submitted that Rogan Pahan, son of Sukar Pahan had no male issue and had only one daughter namely Sulekhi. 6. The counsel for private respondent No. 5 has submitted that Rogan Pahan, son of Sukar Pahan had no male issue and had only one daughter namely Sulekhi. Rogan Pahan brought Kisha Pahan in his childhood and kept in his house who used to graze cattle and also used to help Rogan Pahan in cultivation of land and when Kishun Pahan and Sulekhi reached the age of marriage the said Rogan Pahan got married Sulekhi and Kishun and kept Kishun Pahan as Ghar Damad and as such Kishun Pahan remained at his Sasural at Village Gurgain. Out of the said wedlock respondent No. 5 was born, The main contention raised by respondent No. 5 is that his father Kishun Pahan remained with Rogan Pahan as his Ghar Damad and exercised all acts of Ghar Damad and also remained in possession of the land of Khata No. 51 & 79 and did all acts of possession by cultivating the land and he has a son who after his death inherited entire estates including movable and immovable property of Rogan Pahan, his grandfather. The counsel for respondent No.5 further submitted that they were in possession of the land in question since long and the petitioners herein also admitted the title over the land in question and this has also come in the evidence on record. 7. I have considered the rival submissions, pleadings and the contention raised by the parties and also the impugned order passed by the revisional authority which is sought to be challenged. The main issue for kind consideration is as to whether the Ghar Damad (respondent No.5 herein) could invoke Section 71-A of the C.N.T. Act for restoration of the land in question against the legal heir and agnates of the recorded tenants. 8. The following questions arise for prime consideration:- (i) Whether the revisional authority has jurisdiction to pass the impugned order under Section 71-A of the C.N.T. Act? (ii) Whether the findings in the impugned order are perverse on the ground that customary rights amongst tribal community of Mundaunder which a widow of raiyat whose husband dies without leaving a male descendant does not inherit the properties of her husband and such properties would revert to the agnates of the deceased husband? (ii) Whether the findings in the impugned order are perverse on the ground that customary rights amongst tribal community of Mundaunder which a widow of raiyat whose husband dies without leaving a male descendant does not inherit the properties of her husband and such properties would revert to the agnates of the deceased husband? (iii) Whether the disputed lands could not have been legally restored to respondent No. 5 despite the fact that he is not the legal heir of the Khatiyani raiyat? 9. Under Section 71 of the C.N.T. Act 1908, protection can be extended only to a raiyat belonging to a member of Scheduled Tribe, who has been forcibly dispossessed by any illegal means. In the instant case respondent no. 5 is neither a raiyat nor there is any transfer or forceful dispossession and thus Section 71-A of the C.N.T. Act cannot be invoked nor does it apply to the present facts and circumstances of the case. The Revisional Authority in the instant case failed to appreciate that no authority has been vested with the exercise of even ancillary or subordinate legislative functions. Section 71 (A) of the Act vests power in the Deputy Collector but that power is clearly the power of determining whether there has been a transfer of the lands in contravention of the provisions of the Act or by a fraudulent method. The power confirmed (sic conferred) is an adjudicatory power, a judicial or "quasi'-judicial power and not a legislative power. 10. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that according to Customary Right in the scheduled tribe community of Murida, widow of a Khatiyani raiyat or for that matters the daughter has no right of inheritance of her husband's property or the father's property and in absence of male descendants the property would revert to the legal heirs or near agnates. The fact remains that no transfer has taken place between the parties and the petitioners are in possession admittedly being the legal heirs and nearest agnates of the recorded tenants and thus after the death of the recorded tenants the present petitioners stepped into the shoes of the recorded tenants and the order of restoration at the instance of Ghar Damad under Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act is illegal and without jurisdiction. 11. 11. It will be relevant to point out that evidence in detail has been considered by the appellate authority i.e. Additional Collector, Ranchi wherein after recording the evidence of both the sides it has come to the definite conclusion about the admitted case that respondent No.5 (Ghar Damad) was not even living in the land in question and was instead living in Bartua. Thus he was even otherwise not in possession of the ancestral land. The learned Additional Collector, after considering the entire evidence and the statement of the witnesses has also come to the conclusion that the father of respondent no. 5, Kisha Pahan, was not even a Ghar Damad otherwise he would have lived in his father-in-law's lands in question and no document in this regard was produced and the fact that he was living in his own village Bartua was also proved by the statement of his own witnesses and evidences. 12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the revisional authority dated 26.6.2002 is hereby quashed without any order as to costs. / / JehJ Pctm G:tru Pam