JUDGMENT By Court: In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 30.1.1988 passed by the Special Officer, Scheduled Areas Regulation, Ranchi in S. A. R. Case No. 37/1983-84 (Annexure -10) whereby the petitioners were directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/-to the respondent Nos. 5-8 with respect to 0.22 Acres of land out of Revisional Survey Plot No. 703, Khata No. 58, Village -Kokar, P.S -Sadar, Thana No. 195, District Ranchi. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 26.12.1991 passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in S. A. R Appeal No. 152 R 15 of 1987-88 (Annexure -11) whereby the Additional Collector has dismissed the petitioners' appeal and passed order of restoration of the aforesaid land in favour of the private-respondents, though no appeal was filed by them against the order of compensation of the Special Officer. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the order dated 30.12.1997 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in S. A. R Revision No. 34/1992 (Annexure – 12), upholding the said order of the Additional Collector. 2. The petitioners' case is that the petitioner No. 1 is a partnership Firm having its business at Old Hazaribagh Road, Ranchi, P.S -Lalpur, District -Ranchi whereas the petitioner No. 2 is the proprietor of the said Firm. The petitioner No. 2 had purchased the suit land, for valuable consideration, measuring an area of 22 Decimals of R.S Plot No. 703 under Khata No. 40 by virtue of registered sale deed dated 27.2.1975 from the descendants of one Kolha Ram Dusadh. The said Kolha Ram Dusad was recorded as 'Sikmi Dakhalkar' with occupancy rights in the said Khata No. 40 in the Revisional Survey record of rights, finally prepared and published in the year 1935. The right of occupancy is heritable. There was custom prevalent in the village for acquisition of occupancy right even by the under Raiyats. Accordingly, Kolha Ram Dusadh, who was a Sikmidar, had acquired occupancy right which finds mention in the R. S record of right. After death of Kolha Ram Dusadh, his heirs inherited the said land. The petitioner No. 2 had purchased the said land from the heirs of Kolha Ram Dusadh and had acquired valid right title over the suit land. The private respondents had absolutely no right, title or concern over the suit land. After death of Kolha Ram Dusadh, his heirs inherited the said land. The petitioner No. 2 had purchased the said land from the heirs of Kolha Ram Dusadh and had acquired valid right title over the suit land. The private respondents had absolutely no right, title or concern over the suit land. However, they filed an application before the Special Officer, Scheduled Areas Regulation, Ranchi being S. A. R. Case No. 37/1983-84 claiming restoration of the said land in their favour. The Special Officer held that the land out of which Sikmi Khata was prepared is a part and parcel of Khata No. 58, Plot No. 703 which was recorded in the names of Lusa Uraon and Bhaku Uraon, sons of Madi Uraon and Most. Sudain, widow of Chhota Sukhram Uraon, who were members of the Scheduled Tribe and as such transfer of the said land in favour of a non-tribal was illegal. Learned Special Officer, however, held that since the purchasers have constructed permanent structure and running a factory, it will not be justified to dispossess them, but they are liable to pay compensation at the market value. He determined compensation amount as Rs. 1,30,000/-and directed the opposite party -petitioners to pay the said amount to the applicants - respondents. The petitioners challenged the said order in appeal, before the Additional Collector, Ranchi, which was registered as S. A. R Appeal No. 152 R 15 of 1987-88. 3. Learned Additional Collector heard the appeal and not only dismissed the petitioners' appeal, but also set aside the order of payment of compensation and directed to restore the land in favour of the private respondents. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred revision before the Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi being Ranchi Revision No. 34/1992. Learned Commissioner upheld the order of the Additional Collector and dismissed the revision. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the right of Sikmi is recognized under the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act and there is custom in some areas under which the Sikmi Raiyat acquirers occupancy right. 6. He further submitted that in the instant case, the record of right published in the year 1935, was recorded in the name of Kolha Ram Dusadh as 'Sikmidakhalkar'. Meaning thereby, Kokha Ram Dusadh was a Sikmidar with occupancy right. 6. He further submitted that in the instant case, the record of right published in the year 1935, was recorded in the name of Kolha Ram Dusadh as 'Sikmidakhalkar'. Meaning thereby, Kokha Ram Dusadh was a Sikmidar with occupancy right. Even the village note prepared in course of survey clearly shows that Sikmidar, who held the land for agriculture purposes, acquires occupancy right, in the village. The petitioner No. 2 had purchased the land in question from the descendants of Kolha Ram Dusadh who was not a tribal. The transfer of land was from a non-tribal to non-tribal and there was no violation of Section 46 or any provision of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. There is no element of fraud in the said transfer. The petitioners, thus, acquired valid right, title by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 27.2.1975. Learned revenue Courts have, thus, proceeded on wrong conception of law and have erroneously passed the impugned orders. It has been further submitted that at any rate, the order of the Special Officer directing payment of compensation in lieu of restoration of land was never challenged by the applicants-respondents and that the said order was final and binding. The Additional Collector erroneously substituted the said order, directing restoration of the land in favour of the private-respondents. Learned Commissioner has also committed serious error of law in upholding and affirming the said erroneous order of the Additional Collector. The said impugned orders are, thus, arbitrary and illegal and are liable to be set aside. 7. The writ petition was contested by the private-respondents as well as by the State. 8. Mr. P. P. N. Roy, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the private-respondents, submitted that the suit land, admittedly, is a part and parcel of Revisional Survey Khata No. 58, Khesra No. 703 which was recorded in the names of the members of the Scheduled Tribe. It is true that Kolha Ram Dusadh was recorded as Sikmidakhalkar in respect of the said land in Sikmi Raiyati Khata. The original nature of the land did not change and as such the order of the Special Officer was perfectly correct as well as the appellate and the revisional orders are also legal and proper. It is true that Kolha Ram Dusadh was recorded as Sikmidakhalkar in respect of the said land in Sikmi Raiyati Khata. The original nature of the land did not change and as such the order of the Special Officer was perfectly correct as well as the appellate and the revisional orders are also legal and proper. Learned counsel further submitted that though the tribal respondents had not challenged the order of the Special Officer whereby compensation was awarded in their favour, the appellate and revisional Courts are vested with jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Special Officer suo motu and pass appropriate order. There is no illegality in altering the order of payment of compensation passed by the Special Officer and directing restoration of land in favour of the tribal respondents. 9. Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State supported the said submissions of learned counsel for the applicants-respondents and submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are legal and justified and no interference is warranted by this Court with the said orders. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I perused the impugned orders and also considered the facts and materials on record. The Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi by his order dated 30.1.1988 held that the land in question is part and parcel of a tribal land and the transfer of the said land by the heirs of Kolha Ram Dusadh was illegal. But, he found and held that the petitioner No. 2 has set up a factory and it would not be proper to remove the same. In view of the same, he directed the petitioners to pay compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/-in lieu of restoring the land in favour of the applicants. 11. It is an admitted fact that the said order of payment of compensation in lieu of restoration was not challenged by the applicants-respondents. 12. Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, inter alia, provides for validating the transfer on payment of compensation in lieu of restoration of land, in second proviso thereof. 13. In the instant case, though no date of raising / establishment of said factory was mentioned by the parties, considering the substantial nature of construction, learned Special Officer exercising statutory discretion, directed payment of compensation in lieu of restoration of possession of land to the applicants. 13. In the instant case, though no date of raising / establishment of said factory was mentioned by the parties, considering the substantial nature of construction, learned Special Officer exercising statutory discretion, directed payment of compensation in lieu of restoration of possession of land to the applicants. The said order was not challenged by the applicants-respondents. The Additional Collector on his own set aside that order and directed restoration of land. The Additional Collector, however, erroneously held that even if under Raiyat acquires occupancy right, the same is not heritable and as such the suit land was not transferable. Learned Additional Collector failed to take into consideration that Kolha Ram Dusadh was a 'Sikmidar' with occupancy right (Sikmidakhalkar). According to the glossary appended to the Revisional Survey Report of the Settlement Officer F. F. Taylor, ‘Dakhalkar’ means occupancy status. 14. The incident of occupancy right is described in various provisions of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act (for short 'C.N.T Act'). Section 21 of the C. N. T Act enumerates the said right. Section 22 of the C. N. T Act protects occupancy-raiyat from eviction except on specified grounds. Section 23 of the Act provides for devolution of occupancy right on death of a Raiyat, in the same manner as other immovable property, subject to any local custom to the contrary. 15. In the instant case, since Kolha Ram Dusadh had acquired occupancy right, the said right, according to law, is heritable. The Additional Collector as well as the Commissioner have, thus, misconstrued the right of occupancy and erroneously held that the descendants of Kolha Ram Dusadh had not acquired any right title over the land in question. However, the Special Officer has not gone into the said issue. He considered that Sikmi land is a part and parcel of Raiyati land recorded in the names of the tribals. 16. In course of hearing of the writ petition, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are ready to accept the order passed by learned Special Officer and they are ready to pay compensation amount awarded by the Special Officer. 17. In view of the said submissions, this Court has not delved into the other points raised by the petitioners so far as the order of the Special Officer is concerned. 18. 17. In view of the said submissions, this Court has not delved into the other points raised by the petitioners so far as the order of the Special Officer is concerned. 18. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 26.12.1991 (Annexure -11) passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi as also the impugned order dated 30.12.1997 (Annexure -12) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, South Chota Nagpur Division, Ranchi are set aside. The order passed by the Special Officer, Scheduled Areas Regulation, Ranchi in S. A. R Case No. 37/83-84 (Annexure -10) is restored. 19. The petitioners are directed to pay the amount of compensation in accordance with the order of the Special Officer with simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of the order of the Special Officer till the date of final payment. For the purpose of calculating the interest and identifying the applicants of S. A. R Case No. 37/83-84, the matter is remitted to the Court of the Special Officer, Scheduled Areas Regulation, Ranchi. The Special Officer, Ranchi shall calculate the amount of interest and the total amount payable by the petitioners to the applicants-respondents. The petitioners, thereafter, shall deposit the total calculated amount within four weeks. After depositing the total calculated amount, the same shall be paid to the applicants or successors-in-interest of the applicants of S. A. R Case No. 37/83-84, as the case may be. 20. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.