ORDER : Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and Respondents. 2. Respondent No. 6 to 8 have succeeded in the restoration of the land comprising an area of .06 acres in Plot no. 1184, Khata no. 61 situate at village and P.S. Ghaghra, District Gumla under the provisions of Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 in SAR Case No. 27 of 2003-04 vide order dated 25.8.2004 (Annexure-3), upheld in SAR Appeal No. 14 of 2005-06 and SAR Revision No. 072 of 2005 vide order dated 29.10.2005 and 27.4.2006(Annexure-4 and 5 respectively). Learned SAR Court has upon consideration of the submission of the applicants/Respondent no. 6 to 8 and the opposite party/petitioner herein including the inquiry report submitted by the Circle Officer, Ghaghra, found violation of Section 46 of the Act of 1908 and directed restoration of possession. Petitioner defended himself in SAR proceedings relying upon the conveyance deed on plain piece of paper said to be executed on 11.1.1965 by one Soma Oraon for a consideration of Rs.10,000/- and claimed to have come into exclusive possession thereof. The Circle Officer in his report has mentioned about the construction of structures over the said piece of land by the opposite party/petitioner sometime in the year 1996. The plea of the petitioner on limitation also did not find any favour in the SAR Court in those circumstances. The appeal was preferred after about 14 months before the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla and was dismissed by order dated 29.10.2005 as being time barred. Applicant/petitioner herein took the plea of lack of knowledge of the order dated 25.8.2004 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gumla in their application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Petitioner also tried to substantiate the plea by contending that he was through out represented in the SAR proceedings, copy of the order sheet, whereof is also enclosed as Annexure-8 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 18.4.2017 in the present matter. According to him the order of SAR Court was passed behind his back and even after repeated queries the concerned Office Clerk never revealed the fact. This occasioned delay in preferring the appeal, which has not been considered at all by the Appellate Court while rejecting his appeal on the ground of delay. The revisional authority has also not found any merit in his case. This occasioned delay in preferring the appeal, which has not been considered at all by the Appellate Court while rejecting his appeal on the ground of delay. The revisional authority has also not found any merit in his case. It has also observed that appeal itself was delayed by more than 14 months. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all these questions including that of limitation in seeking restoration beyond the period of 30 years from the date of alleged dispossession in the year 1965 have not been taken into account by the inferior authorities while rejecting the plea. Matter therefore deserves to be remanded to the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on merits once again. 4. Learned counsel for the Respondent State and Private Respondents have defended the impugned orders. According to the Respondents, the applicants/Respondent no. 6 to 8 were the descendant of the recorded raiyat Baiju Oraon. No permission was taken in terms of Section 46 of the Act for transfer of land in favour of the petitioner. The transfer if any is also based upon a plain unregistered document, which has no sanctity in the eye of law. The report of the Circle Officer, Ghaghra dated 16.2.2004 also shows dispossession in the year 1995 and not in the year 1965 as claimed by the petitioner. Land is agricultural rayaiti land and not chhaparbandi. The SAR Court therefore did not find any substance in the plea of the petitioner and rightly directed restoration of the land to the dispossessed raiyat. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla has found no cogent explanation to condone the delay of 14 months in preferring the SAR appeal. The impugned orders are well considered and do not deserve any interference. It is also categorically stated in para 19 of the counter affidavit that on 11.5.2006, the Respondent nos. 5 and 6 were put in possession on the land in question in execution of the order within the knowledge of the petitioner. Xerox copy of the report of the D.P. is enclosed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submits that there is an interim order of status quo on 18.5.2006 and petitioner remained in possession in consequence thereof. 6. Considered the submission of the parties, relevant materials pleaded and on record including the impugned orders. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submits that there is an interim order of status quo on 18.5.2006 and petitioner remained in possession in consequence thereof. 6. Considered the submission of the parties, relevant materials pleaded and on record including the impugned orders. Perusal of the impugned orders show that plea of the petitioner is not substantiated from the materials on record. The basis for the petitioner to claim possession over the piece of land in question is a plain unregistered document said to be executed in the year 1965. The Applicants/Respondent no. 6 to 8 are definitely shown as descendants of the recorded raiyat, Schedule Tribe, Baiju Oraon. No permission was ever taken in terms of Section 46 of the Act of 1908 for such transfer. The dispossession as per the inquiry report, has taken place in the year 1995-1996. The proceedings in the revision case has been instituted in the year 2003-04 i.e. within the limitation period in terms of provisions of Section 71-A of the Act of 1908. The possession has also been handed over to the dispossessed raiyat on 11.5.2006 prior to passing of the interim order dated 18.5.2006 as per annexure-B, delivery of possession certificate. The plea taken for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal also does not appear to be convincing on the part of the petitioner. 7. On the totality of facts and circumstance, therefore, the impugned orders at Annexure-3 dated 25.8.2004 passed by the S.D.O, Gumla in SAR Case No. 27 of 2003-04, Annexure-4 dated 29.10.2005 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla in SAR Appeal no. 14 of 2005-06 and Annexure-5 dated 27.4.2006 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in SAR Revision No. 072 of 2005 do not appear to suffer from legal or factual infirmity warranting interference under writ jurisdiction of this Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.