Order These two writ petitions have been filed against the common order dated 25.11.2002 passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, in Ranchi SAR Revision No. 46/1997. This order of the Commissioner has been annexed as Annexure-7 in WPC No. 6768/ 2002, Annexure-6 in WPC No. 6729/2002, by which in exercise of the revisional power, the learned Commissioner has set aside the order dated 30.10.1996 passed by the Dy. Commissioner, Ranchi in SAR Appeal No. 18R, 15/94-95 and allowed the revision application, filed by Respondent No.5 Bandhan Oraon. 2. The relevant facts, in short, are that a proceeding under Section 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, being SAR Case No. 26/89-90 was initiated on an application made by Bandhan Oraon, S/o Sanicharwa Oraon (Respondent No.5 herein) against Smt. Pratima Bakshi (Respondent No.6) for restoration of the land appertaining to Plot No. 1589 within Khata No. 121 area 52 decimals. It was claimed on the ground that the applicant Bandhan Oraon was illegally dispossessed from the said land though he is the descendent of the recorded tenant, and a member of Scheduled Tribes. The writ petitioners Sarmistha Sinha and Meera Prasad were added as party respondents in the aforesaid proceeding before the S.A.R. Officer since they had purchased part of the disputed land by registered deeds of sale. 3. The Special Officer, SAR, by his order dated 30th November, 1994, contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition, dismissed the application for restoration, mainly on the ground that on 22.11.1957, by a registered Kabuliat, the nature of the disputed land had been changed and it was made "Ghhaparband" with the permission of the landlord and therefore, Section 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act has no application in a case of 'Ghhaparbandi' lands. 4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Special Officer, S.A.R., Bandhan Oraon (Respondent No.5) preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, which was registered as SAR. Appeal No. 18R, 15/94-95. 4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Special Officer, S.A.R., Bandhan Oraon (Respondent No.5) preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, which was registered as SAR. Appeal No. 18R, 15/94-95. The Deputy Commissioner, by terms of the order contained in Annexure-4, dated 30.10.1996, dismissed the appeal after hearing the parties and confirmed the order passed by the Special Officer, SAR holding that Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act does not apply in the case of Ghhaparbandi land and that the application filed by the applicant for restoration of the land was barred by limitation since it was filed after a lapse of 40 years. 5. The respondent no. 5 thereafter, moved before the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, by filing a revision application against the orders passed by the Special Officer as well as against the order of the Deputy Commissioner which was registered as Ranchi SAR Revision No. 14/1997. The learned Commissioner by the impugned order dated 25.11.2002 contained in Annexure-7, has allowed the revision application and set aside the orders passed by the Special Officer as well as the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, and directed for restoration of the land in question in favour of Respondent No.5 Bandhan Oraon. It is this order, which has been challenged by both the writ petitioners in these two writ petitions. 6. The petitioners of both the writ petitions namely, Sarmistha Sinha and Meera Prasad, are the purchasers of part of the lands in question. The petitioner Sarmistha Sinha has claimed to have purchased 6.25 kathas of land from Smt. Pratima Bakshi by a registered sale deed on 24.8.1990, whereas the petitioner Meera Prasad of WPC No. 6729/2002 has claimed to have purchased 8 kathas of the lands out of the plot in question from Smt. Sibani Mukerjee by a registered sale deed dated 31.4.1984 and the said Smt. Sibani Mukherjee, i.e. her vendor had purchased the said land from Smt. Pratima Bakshi by a registered sale deed dated 8.4.1976. 7. The case of the petitioners is that the lands in question, i.e. plot no. 1589, under Khata No. 121 measuring an area of 152 acres was originally recorded in the name of Sanicharwa Oraon and Somra Oraon, both sons of Soma Oraon. By a registered deed of settlement dated 22.11.1951, (Annexure-1) the nature of the land of plot no. 7. The case of the petitioners is that the lands in question, i.e. plot no. 1589, under Khata No. 121 measuring an area of 152 acres was originally recorded in the name of Sanicharwa Oraon and Somra Oraon, both sons of Soma Oraon. By a registered deed of settlement dated 22.11.1951, (Annexure-1) the nature of the land of plot no. 1589 was changed and it was converted into a 'Ghhaparbandi' by the recorded tenant with the permission of the ex-landlord Narmdeshwar Pd. Singh. After the lands in question become 'Ghhaparbandi', the recorded tenant Soma Oraon sold and transferred part of his 'Ghhaparbandi' land, measuring 21 kathas 12 chhatak out of the total area of 152 acres, to Smt. Pratima Bakshi (Respondent No.6) by a registered deed of sale dated 6.12.1951. Further case of the petitioners is that Smt. Pratima Bakshi constructed a house and other structure over the land purchased by her and she also got her name mutated in the office of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation and paid holding tax in her name. She also filed return under the provision of Urban Land Ceiling Act and claimed that the lands were chhaparbandi and she did not possess excess land. Accordingly the proceeding under the Urban Land Ceiling Act initiated against her, was dropped. Thereafter, Smt. Pratima Bakshi transferred 6.25 kathas of the said 'Ghhaparbandi' land of plot no.1589 to the writ petitioner Sarmistha Sinha by a registered sale deed dated 24.8.1990. After purchasing the land alongwith building, the petitioner Sarmistha Sinha, renovated the old house and constructed a 'Pucca' building and also got her name mutated in Ranchi Municipal Corporation within holding no. 2026(A)/11. 8. The petitioner Meera Prasad in WPC No. 6729/2002, has stated that Smt. Pratima Bakshi, sold 8 kathas of 'Ghhaparbandi' land of the aforesaid plot no. 1589 to Mrs. Sibani Mukherjee W/o Atula Nand Mukherjee by a registered deed of sale on 8.4.1976. Smt. Sibani Mukherjee got her name mutated in the Circle Office and also in the records of Ranchi Municipal Corporation. The said Sibani Mukherjee subsequently, by a registered sale deed dated 31.8.1984, sold the said 8 kathas of 'Ghhaparbandi' land in favour of the petitioner. 9. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha as well as Mr. Smt. Sibani Mukherjee got her name mutated in the Circle Office and also in the records of Ranchi Municipal Corporation. The said Sibani Mukherjee subsequently, by a registered sale deed dated 31.8.1984, sold the said 8 kathas of 'Ghhaparbandi' land in favour of the petitioner. 9. Mr. Amar Kumar Sinha as well as Mr. Ayush Aditya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that it is a settled law that in a case of land, the nature of which is 'Ghhaparbandi' and is within the area of Municipal Corporation, an application Under Section 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act is not maintainable since Section 71 A of the said Act has got no application so far as the 'Ghhaparbandi' land is concerned. They further submitted that the application for restoration filed by the respondent no. 5 was also hopelessly barred by limitation, since it was filed after about a gap of 38 years. Mr. Ayush Aditya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WPC No. 6729/2002 further submitted that earlier also the respondent no. 5 had filed an application for restoration under Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act against the writ petitioner Meera Prasad being S.A.R. Case No. 26/89-90, which was already dismissed on 30.11.1994 and the appeal against the said dismissal order was also dismissed by the appellate court and, therefore, the second application for restoration filed by the Respondent No. 5 for the same cause of action against Meera Prasad is barred by res judicata. In support of their contentions, they have placed reliance in the case of Situ Sahu and others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others reported in 2004(4) JLJR 109; Fulchand Munda vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2008(2) JCR 1 (SC) : 2008(1) JLJR (SC) 309 Jai Mangal Oraon vs. Mira Nayak (Smt.) and Others and analogous cases reported in (2000)5 SCC 141 ; Ashwini Kumar Roy VS. State of Bihar reported in 1987 BL T Page 332(Pat.)(RB); Anupama Roy vs. The State of Bihar and Others reported in 2003(3) JLJR 626 ; and Jaitu Oraon and Another vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others reported in 2004(2) JLJR 253 ; and Munni Devi & Ors. vs. Special Officer, Scheduled Areas Regulation reported in 1989 BLT (Reports) 407 [ : 1990(2) PLJR 332]. 10. On the other hand, Ms. Shubha Jha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. vs. Special Officer, Scheduled Areas Regulation reported in 1989 BLT (Reports) 407 [ : 1990(2) PLJR 332]. 10. On the other hand, Ms. Shubha Jha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5, by referring to the statements made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent No. 5 submitted that the land in question was never converted into Chhaparbandi and Sanicharwa Oraon, i.e. the father of the Respondent No.5 never surrendered his raiyat land in favour of the landlord. The transfer of the land in question in favour of the petitioners or their vendor have been made in contravention of the provisions of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and, therefore, the learned Commissioner has rightly set aside the order passed by the Special Officer as well as the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed in appeal. 11. From the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner contained in Annexure-7 in WPC No. 6768/2002 equivalent to Annexure-6 in WPC No. 6729/2002, it appears that the learned Commissioner has based her orders on the ground that Sanicharwa Oraon could not have executed the Kabuliat alone because the lands were jointly held by Sanicharwa Oraon and his brother. 12. There is no dispute of the fact that the total area of plot no. 1589 was 1.52 acres and even if it is-accepted that the entire area was held and possessed by Sanicharwa Oraon and his brother even then Sanicharwa Oraon was definitely entitled to sell half of the area of the entire plot no. 1589 whereas Sanicharwa Oraon has sold only 36 decimals of lands to Smt. Pratima Bakshi after conversion of the land by registered deed dated 22.11.1951. Therefore, the finding by the learned Commissioner that Sanicharwa Oraon alone had no authority to transfer the land cannot be sustained. 13. In the present case, I find that the land in question was allowed to be converted into 'Chhaparbandi' by registered deed in the year 1951 itself and after conversion of the land into 'Chhaparbandi', the same was sold by the father of the respondent no. 5 to Smt. Pratima Bakshi by a registered Sale Deed dated 22.11.1951 and she also paid holding tax and 'Chhaparbandi' rent etc. 5 to Smt. Pratima Bakshi by a registered Sale Deed dated 22.11.1951 and she also paid holding tax and 'Chhaparbandi' rent etc. therefore it appears that the land in question was validly converted into 'Chhaparbandi' land by the recorded tenant with permission of the landlord by a registered deed and subsequently, the said land was sold by registered deed of sale in favour of Smt. Pratima Bakshi on 22.11.1951 by a registered document. 14. In the case of Ashwini Kumar Roy vs. State of Bihar reported in 1987 BLT Page 332(Pat.)(RB), the Division Bench of the Patna High Court, has clearly held that no proceeding under Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act can be initiated for restoration of 'Chhaparbandi' land. If the land is 'Chhaparbandi' then it will be governed by Transfer of Property Act and not by the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. In the case of Anupama Roy vs. The State of Bihar and Others reported in 2003(3) JLJR 626 , a Single Bench of this Court also quashed the order of restoration passed by the Courts below on the ground that the land in question was a 'Chhaparbandi' land. 15. In this view of the matter, as per the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Ashwini Kumar Roy vs. State of Bihar reported in 1987 BL T Page 332(Pat.)(RB); Anupama Roy vs. The State of Bihar and Others reported in 2003(3) JLJR 626 , I hold that the application under Section 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act filed by the respondent no. 5 for restoration of the land in question, was not maintainable in view of the reasons stated hereinabove. 16. Now coming to the question of limitation. 5 for restoration of the land in question, was not maintainable in view of the reasons stated hereinabove. 16. Now coming to the question of limitation. I find that in the case of Jai Mangal Oraon vs. Mira Nayak (Smt.) and Others and analogous cases reported in (2000)5 SCC 141 , the Supreme Court has held as follows:- "Merely because Section 71 A commences with the word "at any time .....", it cannot be taken to mean that those powers can be exercised without any point of time limit as in this case, after nearly about 40 years, rights of the parties acquired in the meantime under ordinary law and the law of limitation." In the case of Situ Sahu and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others reported in 2004(4) JLJR 109, the Supreme Court held that the test is not whether the period of limitation prescribed in 1963 Act has expired but whether the power under Section 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act was sought to be exercised after unreasonable delay and the lapse of 40 years is certainly not a reasonable time for exercise of power. In the case of Fulchand M,unda vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2008(2) JCR 1 (SC) [ : 2008(1) JLJR (SC) 309], it has been held that power under Section 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act can be exercised by the deputy Commissioner within a reasonable period of time. Gap of more than 50 years for challenging the transfer cannot be said to be the reasonable time. 17. In the present case, admittedly, the land in question was transferred in the year 1951 whereas, the application for restoration was filed in the year 1990 and the order for restoration has been passed by the Commissioner on 25.11.2002. Therefore, it is apparent that the application for restoration was filed after about 38 years whereas, the power under Section 71 A has been exercised after a gap of 51 years. Therefore, it can be said that the power for restoration was exercised after a long lapse of time which was not reasonable therefore it is held that the application for restoration filed by the respondent no. 5 was barred by limitation. 18. Therefore, it can be said that the power for restoration was exercised after a long lapse of time which was not reasonable therefore it is held that the application for restoration filed by the respondent no. 5 was barred by limitation. 18. It appears that the assertion of the petitioner Meera Prasad that earlier also an application under Section 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act was filed against her by respondent no. 5 Bandhan Oraon being SAR Case No. 26/89-90 and the same was dismissed by the Special Officer as well as by the Appellate Authority. This point has already been settled by a number of judgments of this Court wherein it has been held that if on earlier occasions the application for restoration has been rejected and it has become final then subsequent application for restoration for the same would be hit by principles of res judicata. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions in the case of "Gadia Oraon & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors., reported in 2004(1) JCR 237 (Jhr.), and "Bibi Makho vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2004(1) JLJR 515 : 2004(2) JCR 107 (Jhr.); and "Ram Chandra Sahu vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1990(1) PLJR 604; and "Smt. Satyawati Devi vs. State of Bihar, reported in 1996(2) PLJR 719". 19. It would not be out of place to mention here that though Mrs. Shubha Jha, learned counsel has very vehemently argued on behalf of the respondent no. 5 and cited several decision such as reported in Pandey Oraonvs. Ram Chander Sahu and Others reported in AIR 1992 SC 195 [ : 1992(1) PLJR (SC)89]; Jageshwar Sikhar and Others vs. Yubrajin Srimati Baidehi Kuer & Anr. reported in 1970 PLJR 139; Dcotu Ohdar vs. State of Bihar reported in 1988 PLJR 211; State of Jharkhand and Others vs. Arjun Das reported in 2004(4) JCR 535 (Jhr.) [: 2005(1) JLJR 1 ]; Sakhiya Kumari vs. State of Bihar reported in 2006(3) JCR 204 (Jhr.) [ : 2006(2) JLJR 585]; Sitlal Baitha @ Ram & Ors. vs. Rudi Chamar & Ors. vs. Rudi Chamar & Ors. reported in 2003(4) JCR 233(Jhr:) [: 2003(4) JLJR 286 ]; Jainath Sahi vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2007(1) JCR 137 (Jhr.) and Ajay Metachem Ltd. vs. Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division and Others reported in 2001 (1) JLJR 165 , but not a single decision cited by her is relevant for the points in issue in this case. Therefore, I have not discussed those decisions. 20. In view of the discussions and findings above, these two writ petitions are allowed. The orders dated 25.11.2002 passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, in Ranchi SAR Revision No. 46/1997 which has been annexed as Annexure-7 in WPC No. 6768/ 2002 and. Annexure-6 in WPC No. 6729/ 2002, are hereby set aside. Consequently, the order dated 30.10.1996 passed by the Dy. Commissioner, Ranchi in SAR Appeal No. 18R, 15/94-95 is hereby affirmed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.