Order One late Ananta Santhal (father of respondent no. 6) filed an application under Section 71 A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the Land Reform Deputy Collector, Ghatshila for restoration of his possession over raiyati land bearing Thana No. 658, Khata No. 98, Plot No. 307 measuring 0.07 decimals situated in Mouza Khandamouda under Bahragora Police Station. East Singhbhum on the plea that the land had been transferred to this petitioner in violation of the provision as contained in Section 46 of the Act. 2. The petitioner on receiving notice submitted show cause stating therein that the petitioner and his ancestor are in possession of the land by constructing house over there since more than 30 years and that in the last survey settlement operation held in the year 1964. the nature of the land in question has been recorded as “Makan and Sahan". However in the record of right of the year 1964, a wrong entry was made in the name of Karan Santhal (father of respondent no. 6). On finding entry being wrongly recorded, said Karan San that executed a deed of disclaim dated 19.11.1969 in favour of the petitioner wherein right title and interest and also the possession of the petitioner and his ancestor over the land in question over which house was constructed was admitted. 3. It was also stated in the show cause that in the year 1968-70, a house existing from before was renovated whereby considerable amount was invested and that the petitioner has been paying rent to the State of Bihar and even the house in question has been let out to the tenants. Thus, it was pleaded that there has been absolutely no contravention of the provision as contained in Section 47 of the Act and as such an application filed under Section 71 A of the Act is not maintainable for the simple reason that the land in question is a homestead land. 4. While the matter was pending, Karamchari made a report in the year 1986 wherein it had been categorically stated that the house stands over the Land since last 30 years. 5. 4. While the matter was pending, Karamchari made a report in the year 1986 wherein it had been categorically stated that the house stands over the Land since last 30 years. 5. On considering all these facts, Land Reforms Deputy Collector did hold that the nature of the land in question is that of "Chhapparbandi land" and that the petitioner has been in possession over it since prior to 1964 and as such, the application was dismissed. 6. Being aggrieved with that order, the respondent no. 6 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur vide S.A.R. Appeal No. 74 of 1997-98 which was allowed by holding that transfer was in contravention of Section 46 of the Act and therefore, he passed an order for restoration of the land in favour of respondent no. 6. That order was challenged by the petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner, South Chota Nagpur Division, Ranchi. vide SAR. Revision No. 89 of 2003 which was dismissed. 7. The said orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Divisional Commissioner as contained in Annexures4 and 5 have been challenged to be bad 8. Mr. P.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the orders have been challenged on several counts but he would confine his case on one point that none of the authorities either Deputy Commissioner. East Singhbhum or the Divisional Commissioner, South Chota Nagpur Division, Ranchi while giving finding in favour of respondent no. 6 did resort to the 2nd proviso of Section 71 A of the Act, though the relevant facts were there to invoke the provision of 2nd proviso to Section 71 A of the Act as it was there In the record that the petitioner constructed house by investing substantial money before coming into force of the Bihar Scheduled Area Regulation, 1969. 9. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6 submits that the impugned orders never warrant to be interfered with as the authorities have categorically come to the findings that the transfer in favour of the ancestor of the petitioner was in contravention of provision as contained in Section 46 of the Act. 10. 9. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6 submits that the impugned orders never warrant to be interfered with as the authorities have categorically come to the findings that the transfer in favour of the ancestor of the petitioner was in contravention of provision as contained in Section 46 of the Act. 10. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that in the record of right published in the year 1964, nature of the land has been recorded as "Makan and Sahan" and that it is the claim of the petitioner that the ancestor of the petitioner on coming to the possession of the land in question constructed house by investing substantial money before coming into force of the Bihar Scheduled Area Regulation, 1969. On such foundational fact, it has been pleaded that the case of the petitioner falls within the 2nd proviso of Section 71 A of the Act which should have been resorted to by the authorities. The 2nd proviso to Section 71 A reads as follows: "Provided further that where the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that the transferee has constructed a substantial structure or building on such holding or portion thereof before coming into force of the Bihar Scheduled Area Regulation, 1969, he may, notwithstanding any other provisions of the Act, validate such transfer where the transferee either makes available to the transferor an alternative holding or portion thereof as the case may be, of the equivalent value of the vicinity or pays adequate compensation to be determined by the Commissioner for rehabilitation of the transferor" 11. In view of the stand taken by the petitioner supported by certain documents, I am of the view that the case of the petitioner falls within the purview of 2nd proviso to Section 71 A of the Act and hence, the authorities should have resorted to that provision. Since the said provision has not been recorded to while dealing with the matter either by the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner, the matter is being remanded before the Deputy Commissioner to decide the claim of the petitioner on a limited point as provided under 2nd proviso to Section 71 A of the Act. 12. With the aforesaid direction/observation, this writ application is disposed of.