JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the impugned judgment and other relevant records. 2. Briefly stated, the appellants-writ petitioners (hereinafter to be referred as “petitioners”) are the descendants of the original applicant who was the ex-landlord. By a Hukumnama dated 22.08.1951, the ex-landlord settled the land comprised in Plot No. 608 of Khata No. 1, admeasuring about 42 decimals in village Haradih, P.S. Tamar, DistrictRanchi in favour of one Sukhu Mahto. The respondent nos. 4 to 7 in the writ proceeding are the legal heirs and successors of late Sukhu Mahto. In the year 1986, an application under Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was filed by the ancestor of the petitioners for restoration of the aforesaid land on the ground that the Hukumnama dated 22.08.1951 was executed in contravention of Section 46 of the CNT Act as, no prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner was taken before the transfer of the aforesaid land to the said Sukhu Mahto. The application under Section 71A of the CNT Act was allowed in favour of the ancestor of the petitioners on 24.09.1986, against which the respondent nos. 4 to 7 preferred appeal however, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 25.08.1987. The matter was taken in Revision vide SAR Revision No. 288 of 1987 which was dismissed vide order dated 20.10.1987, which order was challenged by filing C.W.J.C. Nos. 1941 and 1942 of 1987(R) and C.W.J.C. Nos. 213 and 162 of 1988(R). The writ petitions were allowed on 08.07.1997 and the matter was remitted back before the Revisional Authority. On remand the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division allowed SAR Revision No. 288 of 1987 vide order dated 20.04.1999. The said order was challenged by the petitioners before the Writ Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1469 of 1999(R). The writ petition was dismissed on 01.08.2006, aggrieved thereof, the petitioners are before us. 3. The issue contested by the parties in the present proceeding are, “whether prohibition under Section 46 of the CNT Act is attracted on “Zirat” land and whether provision under Section 71A of the CNT Act can be invoked for restoration of “Zirat” land?” 4. Section 6 of the CNT Act defines “raiyat” which reads thus;- “6. 3. The issue contested by the parties in the present proceeding are, “whether prohibition under Section 46 of the CNT Act is attracted on “Zirat” land and whether provision under Section 71A of the CNT Act can be invoked for restoration of “Zirat” land?” 4. Section 6 of the CNT Act defines “raiyat” which reads thus;- “6. Meaning of “raiyat”.–(1) “Raiyat” means primarily a person who has acquired a right to hold and for the purpose of cultivating it by himself or by members of his family, or by hired servants or with the aid of partners; and includes the successor-in-interest of persons who have acquired such a right, but does not include a Mundari-khunt-kattidar. Explanation.–Where a tenant of land has the right to bring it under cultivation, he shall be deemed to have acquired a right to hold it for the purpose of cultivation, notwithstanding that he uses it for the purpose of gathering the produce of it or of grazing cattle on it. (2) A person shall not be deemed to be a riayat unless he holds land either immediately under a proprietor or immediately under a tenure-holder or immediately under a Mundari-khunt-kattidar. (3) in determining whether a tenant is a tenure-holder or raiyat, the Court shall have regard to.– (a) local custom, and (b) the purpose for which the right of tenancy was originally acquired.” 5. Section 118 of the CNT Act defines “Zirat”. It reads thus;- “118. (3) in determining whether a tenant is a tenure-holder or raiyat, the Court shall have regard to.– (a) local custom, and (b) the purpose for which the right of tenancy was originally acquired.” 5. Section 118 of the CNT Act defines “Zirat”. It reads thus;- “118. Definition of “landlord's privileged lands”.– (1) The expression “landlord's privileged lands”, as used in this Chapter, means.– (a) lands which are cultivated by the landlord himself with his own stock or by his own servants or by hired labour or are held by a tenant on lease for a term exceeding one year, or on a lease written or oral for a period of one year or less, and which are by custom, recognised as privileged land in which occupancy rights cannot accrue, and (b) land which are known as 'Zirat' in the Chota Nagpur Division other than the Districts of Ranchi and Dhanbad and Patamda, Ichgarh and Chandil police stations in the District of Singhbhum, lands which are known as man in the District of Dhanbad and Patamda, Ichagarh and Chadil police stations in the District of Singhbhum and lands which are entered as Manjhihas or Bethkheta in any register prepared and confirmed under the Chota Nagpur Tenures Act, 1869. (2) From such date as the State Government may by notification direct, no lease for a term which exceeds or might in any possible event exceed one year shall be considered for the purpose of clause (a) of this Section unless it be in writing.” 6. The Revisional Authority and the Writ Court both have held that prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 46 of the CNT Act for transfer of “Zirat” land is not required and such transfer without permission under Section 46 is not illegal. Section 46 of the CNT Act mandates prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner before a raiyat transfers his land to another person who is a Schedule Tribe and who is a resident of the area under the same police station within which the holding is situated. Similarly, Section 71 also talks of “raiyat”. The distinction made under the Act between the “raiyati” land and “Zirat” land is clearly significant. Admittedly, the petitioners' ancestor namely, Manki Sita Nath Singh was the ex-landlord and the land in question was his “Zirat” land. Similarly, Section 71 also talks of “raiyat”. The distinction made under the Act between the “raiyati” land and “Zirat” land is clearly significant. Admittedly, the petitioners' ancestor namely, Manki Sita Nath Singh was the ex-landlord and the land in question was his “Zirat” land. The Writ Court has held that a “Zirat” land which is the privileged land of ex-landlord cannot be said to be a raiyati land and therefore, Section 71A of the CNT Act is not applicable to the “Zirat” land. 7. Admittedly, there is concurrent finding of the learned Revisional Court and the Writ Court on factual aspect of the matter vis-a-vis the land in question which is recorded in the record of rights as “Zirat” land of ex-landlord namely, Manki Sita Nath Singh. 8. Being that the factual position in the case on hand, the application moved by the appellants-writ petitioners under Section 71A of CNT Act for restoration of the land in question on the ground that the settlement of land by their ancestor in favour of the father of the respondents namely, Late Sukhu Mahto through Hukumnama dated 22.08.1951 was illegal as it was made in contravention of the provisions of Section 46 of the CNT Act was not maintainable is one aspect, on admitted facts, the application moved by the appellants under Section 71A of the CNT Act was barred by limitation and this issue does not require any discussion as, the land was transferred in the year 1951 whereas, the restoration case was filed in the year 1986 and thus, beyond the period of 30 years. 9. Viewed thus, there appears to be no substance in the appeal. The orders of the Revisional Court and of the learned Writ Court are hereby affirmed. The appeal on hand thus, merits dismissal. Ordered accordingly. Application dismissed.