ORDER : Seeking quashing of order dated 04.05.1998 in R.P. Case No. 4 of 1992-93, order dated 23.10.1998 in R.R. Appeal No. 42 of 1998-99 and order dated 22.03.2006 in S.A.R. Revision No. 8 of 1999, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The brief facts narrated in the writ petition are that, the petitioner-company namely, Perfect Electric Concern (P) Ltd. was established in the year, 1960. The petitioner-company purchased a piece of land admeasuring 3.85 acres comprised in Khata No. 155 and 28 in Mauza-Bayanbil, P.S.Parsudih vide saledeed dated 04.08.1973 and amalgamated the same with its adjoining lands. It is stated that one Shri Gurucharan Singh Bhumij acquired a Pradhani right in Thana No. 1184, Mauza-Bayanbil and the said Gurucharan Singh Bhumij settled land admeasuring 12.87 acres in Plot Nos. 5, 6, 8 and 10 to a nontribal namely, one Shri Sunder Das on a rent of rupees two and one Anna by executing a settlement deed dated 29.06.1945. One Smt. Kuthru Kundaram purchased land comprised in thana No. 1184, Mouza-Bayanbil, Plot No. 8, Areaapproximately 7 Bigha 4 Katha vide registered saledeed dated 22.01.1954 for a valuable consideration. She also purchased about 1 Bigha 17 Katha of land comprised in the said Thana No. 1184 vide saledeed dated 16.07.1954 and about 0.42 acres of land directly from the landlordShri Gurucharan Singh Bhumij by registered saledeed dated 23.10.1954 and about 5 Bigha 16 Katha and 10 Dhur of land vide registered saledeed dated 19.02.1955 from Sunder Das. In this manner, the said Kuthru Kundaram acquired more than 13 Bighas of land. In the Revisional Survey Settlement of 1964, the aforesaid land is recorded as “Balat Dakhal” in the name of Smt. Kuthru Kundaram and in this manner she perfected her title. The land in question has been purchased from Smt. Kuthru Kundaram by one Smt. Sita Devi Khirwal vide registered saledeed dated 23.12.1965. The petitioner acquired about 3.85 acres of land from the said Smt. Sita Devi Khirwal through registered saledeed dated 04.08.1973. The land in question has been purchased from Smt. Kuthru Kundaram by one Smt. Sita Devi Khirwal vide registered saledeed dated 23.12.1965. The petitioner acquired about 3.85 acres of land from the said Smt. Sita Devi Khirwal through registered saledeed dated 04.08.1973. It further appears that on 19.12.1980, one Gomo Ho filed an application in the court of Subdivisional Magistrate, Dalbhum alleging that the aforesaid land belonged to him and he was paying rent to the State however, the opposite party namely, Smt. Kuthru Kundaram with the help of survey staff and Amin got her name recorded with respect to the “Balat Dakhal” land in Khata No. 28, Thana No. 1184 and thus, the opposite party fraudulently occupied the said land. The petitioner who at that time had come in possession of the land in question moved Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 223 of 1984(R) challenging notice issued in the proceeding under Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 initiated on the application filed by said Gomo Ho. Vide order dated 28.01.1991, the said notice was quashed holding that proceeding under Section 71A of CNT Act was not maintainable. However, it was observed that dismissal of the writ petition would not be a bar for the said Gomo Ho for seeking relief, if available to him, before appropriate forum. The said Gomo Ho filed Title Suit No. 47 of 1991 which has been dismissed in default. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that long before Section 46 was introduced in CNT Act, 1908 with effect from 05.01.1948, the land in question stood transferred in favour of a nontribal namely, Sunder Das vide Deed of Settlement dated 29.06.1945 and therefore, the subsequent transfer of the land in question would not be hit by the provision contained under Section 46 of the CNT Act, 1908. It is further submitted that the original owner of the land in question namely, Gomo Ho initiated a proceeding under Section 71A of CNT Act, 1908 and the notice issued in the said proceeding was quashed by Hon'ble Patna High Court and thus, the present proceeding initiated at the instance of the said Gomo Ho was barred by resjudicata. 5. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 opposed the prayer granted in the writ petition and submitted that after the introduction of Section 71A of CNT Act,1908, no transfer in favour of the nontribal is permissible. However, he submits that in view of the long possession of the petitioner over the land in question, the parties have agreed to amicably settle the matter. 6. Mr. V.K. Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that the State recognises the transfer made in the year, 1954 in favour of Smt. Kuthru Kundaram which is within the period of 30 years and thus, the said transaction was barred under Section 46 of CNT Act, 1908. He further submits that the compromise entered into between the petitioner and respondent nos. 5 to 8 cannot be sanctioned in law because there is a specific bar prohibiting transfer of tribal land covered under the CNT Act, 1908 in favour of a nontribal and thus, the said compromise cannot be granted sanction of law. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 8. From the materials brought on record, there appears to be no dispute that vide order dated 28.01.1991 in C.W.J.C. No. 223 of 1984(R), the notice issued in the proceeding under Section 71A of the CNT Act, 1908 initiated at the instance of one Gomo Ho was quashed. The Title Suit No. 47 of 1991 filed by said Gomo Ho has also been dismissed in default. It is also a matter of record that in the proceeding in C.W.J.C. No. 223 of 1984(R), the notice issued in the proceeding under Section 71A of CNT Act, 1908 was quashed at the instance of the petitioner. The said proceeding was initiated at the instance of one Gomo Ho and the proceeding in which the impugned orders have been passed which are challenged in the present proceeding, was also initiated at the instance of the said Gomo Ho. The subject matter in both the proceedings is same and the respondent nos. 5 to 8 are claiming through the said Gomo Ho being his legal heirs and thus, the parties also in both the proceedings are same. The subject matter in both the proceedings is same and the respondent nos. 5 to 8 are claiming through the said Gomo Ho being his legal heirs and thus, the parties also in both the proceedings are same. I am of the opinion that the present proceeding initiated at the instance of Gomo Ho, is barred by resjudicata and this aspect of the matter has been completely ignored by the Authorities below. In “Situ Sahu & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.”, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 340 , though the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that for socioeconomic reasons, the party may not even be aware of his own rights and thus if the Deputy Commissioner choses to exercise power under Section 21A of the CNT Act, it would be futile to contend that the period of limitation has expired however, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “11. …........... However, even such power cannot be exercised after an unreasonably long time during which thirdparty interests might have come into effect. Thus, the test is not whether the period of limitation prescribed in the Act of 1963 had expired, but whether the power under Section 71A was sought to be exercised after unreasonable delay.” 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed as under: “14. …........... We need not go into the detailsof the transaction for we may even assume that the transfer was fraudulent. Even the, as held in Ibrahimpatnam [ (2003) 7 SCC 667 ], the power under Section 71A could have been exercised only within a reasonable time. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, we are not satisfied that the Special Officer exercised his powers under Section 71A within a reasonable period of time. The lapse of 40 years is certainly not a reasonable time for exercise of power, even if it is not hedged in by a period of limitation. We derive support to out view from the observations made by this court in Jai Mangal Oraon Case [ (2000) 5 SCC 141 ] which was also a case which arose under the very same provision of law. We derive support to out view from the observations made by this court in Jai Mangal Oraon Case [ (2000) 5 SCC 141 ] which was also a case which arose under the very same provision of law. There this Court took the view that Section 46(4)(a), which envisaged a prior sanction of the Deputy Commissioner before effecting the transfer in any of the modes stated therein, was introduced only in the year 1947 (with effect from 5.1.1948) and no such provision existed during the relevant point of time when the surrender was made in that case (15.1.1942). Obviously, therefore, no such provision existed in 1938, and the same reasoning applied.” 10. It has been brought on record that vide Settlement Deed dated 29.06.1945, one Gurucharan Singh Bhumij settled land to Shri Sunder Das who was not a tribal. The land purchased by the petitioner from one Smt. Sita Devi Khirwal comprised the land settled in favour of Sunder Das and thus, bar under Section 46 which was made effective from 05.01.1948, cannot operate in the present case. Moreover, as noticed above, the present proceeding is barred by Res judicata and accordingly, the orders impugned in the present proceeding are hereby quashed. 11. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed.