Order Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed this application for quashing the order dated 14.8.1997 (Annexure-2) passed by the Respondent No.3-Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi; Order dated 16.11.1998 (Annexure-3) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi dismissing the appeal against the order passed by the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation and the Order dated 24.7.2000 (Annexure-4) passed by the respondent nO.1-Commissioner, South Chota Nagpur Division dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner. 3. The case of the petitioner is that in the year 1950, he purchased a piece of land measuring an area of six Decimals of Plot No. 527 under Khata No. 79 in Village-Bargama for a consideration of Rs. 100/- and after purchase, he raised substantial structure thereon. His further case is that, in title Suit No. 1028 of 1963, the right, title and interest of the father of the petitioner had been declared by the Civil Court on the basis of joint compromise. 4. The respondent no.4-Michel Munda filed an application under Section 71 A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act for restoration of the land on the ground that he was illegally dispossessed from the said land by means of a fraudulent transfer, made in violation of Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. 5. The Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation by his order as contained in Annexure-2, found that the land in dispute was recorded in R.S. record-of-rights-in the name of Somra Kristan and Mashan Kristan, both sons of Laxman Munda having equal shares, who were members of the Scheduled Tribe. It was also held that the petitioner could not produce any documents relating to his purchase of the land in dispute. Accordingly, the order for restoration was passed by the Special Officer holding that the claimant was dispossessed from the land in question illegally in contravention of Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. 6. From the impugned revisional order of the Commissioner also, it appears that it has been held therein that the petitioner claimed to have purchased the land from the ancestors of respondent no. 4 in the year 1950 verbally for a consideration of Rs. 100/- but such verbal transaction for transfer .of immovable property cannot be accepted. No document in support of purchase of the land in dispute was produced. 7. 4 in the year 1950 verbally for a consideration of Rs. 100/- but such verbal transaction for transfer .of immovable property cannot be accepted. No document in support of purchase of the land in dispute was produced. 7. All the three revenue authorities have concurrently found that the petitioner failed to produce any document in support of his claim that he purchased the land from the ancestors of respondent no. 4. It has further concurrently been held that the land in dispute was recorded in the name of the ancestors of the respondent no. 4 who was a member of Scheduled Tribe. 8. From the facts stated herein above, I find 'that this is a clear case in which the respondent no. 4 or his ancestors were dispossessed from their raiyati land by use of fraudulent methods in utter violation of the provisions of Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. In this view of the matter, in my view, all the three courts below have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner and have allowed restoration of the lands in question in favour of the respondent no. 4 under the provision of Section 71 A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. 9. Accordingly, having found no merit, this application is dismised. However, there shall be no order as to costs.