JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assisted by Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. Ayush Aditya, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.4. 3. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 3 & 5. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :- “For quashing the order dated 24-1-2004 passed by the respondent no.1 in Hazaribagh Land Restoration Case No. 38/2000 setting aside the order dated 26-4-2000 passed by the respondent no.2 in land Restoration Appeal No.21/95 passed by the respondent no.2 and also the order dated 10-11-1995 passed by the respondent no.3 in Land Restoration case no. 223/92.” 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits as follows :- i. The petitioners are the descendants of the originally recorded raiyat of the property. ii. A petition for restoration of land under section 46 (4A) of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was filed by the ancestors of the petitioner in the year 1970 namely Kartik Munda, wherein, it was stated that the recorded tenant has been dispossessed from the property in the year 1964 the said proceeding was dropped vide order dated 17.1.77 passed in land restoration Case No.186/70 holding that Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was not applicable in the area within Cantonment Board. iii. Thereafter, an appeal was filed and during the pendency of the appeal, Kartik Munda expired due to which the appellate proceedings was dropped. Against this order, the father of the present writ petitioner filed a writ petition which was numbered as C.W.J.C. No.527 of 1978 (R) which was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Additional Collector, who was directed to proceed afresh in the matter and find out whether deceased Kartik Munda has any legal heirs or not and to proceed in accordance with law. iv. Upon remand, the appeal was taken up and the appellant was substituted vide order dated 27.08.1988 and due to non-appearance of the appellant, the appeal was dropped vide order dated 11.11.1992 without entering into the merits of the case and with a liberty to prefer fresh application. iv. Upon remand, the appeal was taken up and the appellant was substituted vide order dated 27.08.1988 and due to non-appearance of the appellant, the appeal was dropped vide order dated 11.11.1992 without entering into the merits of the case and with a liberty to prefer fresh application. v. Thereafter, the father of the petitioner namely Padua Munda filed a fresh land restoration case on 10.02.1993 which was numbered as Restoration Case No.223/92 under section 46(4A) of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 which was dismissed vide order dated 10.11.1995 on the ground of limitation and also on the ground that of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was not applicable in the cantonment area prior to 1981 and the date of transfer was prior to 1981 and admittedly the property is located in cantonment area of Ramgarh. This order was challenged in appeal which was numbered as Land Restoration Appeal No.21 of 1995 which was allowed vide order dated 26.4.2000. Against this appellate order, the respondent no.4 filed a revision before the Commissioner North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh which was numbered as Land Restoration Revision No.38 of 2000 and the same was allowed vide order dated 24.01.2004. vi. Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 24.01.2004 submits that the impugned order has been passed by holding that the petitioner has been dispossessed for more than 12 years and accordingly the application filed under Section 46 (4A)(a) of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was time barred. The said authority has also held that the application filed by the petitioner was barred by res judicata and that the property was transferred in favour of the private respondent herein by virtue of permission granted under Section 49 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. vii. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 49 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 has no applicability to the facts and circumstances of this case as the provisions of Section 49 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 is applicable when the property is transferred for the purposes mentioned in the said Section and admittedly none of those purposes are attracted in this case, accordingly the recording by the revisional authority that the property was duly transferred by taking the permission under Section 49 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and justifying the transfer suffers from serious illegality which makes the impugned order perverse. viii. viii. He further submits that otherwise also the land reforms Deputy Collector was not competent authority to grant permission for transfer under the provisions of Section 49 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. ix. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no question of any res-judicata in the proceeding because of the reason that in the earlier proceeding a liberty was reserved with the recorded raiyat to initiate a fresh proceeding. He further submits that as per the earlier application the date of dispossession is of 1964 and the application for restoration was filed in the year 1970, therefore, it could not be held that the proceeding at that stage was time barred and as subsequent proceeding has been initiated pursuant to such liberty therefore the entire proceeding could not have been held to be time barred. x. However, during the course of arguments the counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that the property situated in Ramgarh Cantonment Area and further that Ramgarh Cantonment Area was declared to be cantonment area only in the year 1941. xi. Further during the course of the arguments the counsel for the petitioner do not dispute the fact that no rent receipt was ever issued or was possessed by the recorded tenant and accordingly no such rent receipt was ever produced before the authorities. 6. Counsel for the private respondents on the other hand submits that the recorded tenant had surrendered the property as back as in the year 1936 and vide hukmnama dated 5.3. 1940 the property was settled in the name of Budhu Sao and the rent receipts was also issued by the then zamindar in favour of Budhu Sao and by the state after abolition of zamindari pursuant to Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. Subsequently Budhu Sao sold the property by way of registered sale deed in favour of Ram Swaroop Das Agarwal in the year 1959 and thereafter he also got his name mutated and paid rent to the State and thereafter the property was gifted to the private respondents herein by way of registered deed of gift dated 01.05.1977 and since thereafter the private respondent herein are in possession of the property and their name has also been mutated in their favour and are paying rent to the State. 7. 7. Counsel for the respondents further submits that the provisions of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was not applicable within the area of a cantonment and it was not applicable in the cantonment area since year 1920. The property was surrendered by the recorded tenant in the year 1936 and settled by way of hukmnama in the year 1940 in favour of Budhu Sao coupled with issuance of rent receipts. Thereafter Ramgarh Cantonment was declared in the year 1941 and subsequently by another amendment of the year 1982 the applicability of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was extended to areas within the areas of cantonment also. He submits that even if the best case of the petitioner is taken into consideration i.e., ancestors of the petitioners were dispossessed in the year 1964 then also admittedly the property was in the cantonment area, therefore, Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 had no applicability in the area in the year 1964. In such circumstances, the transfer which had taken place in the year 1964 could not have been subject matter of a proceeding under Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. However, he submits that the specific case of the respondent is that the recorded tenant were dispossessed as back as in the year 1936/1940 and which was coupled by the rent receipts issued by the Zamindars and subsequently acknowledged by the State of Bihar after Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and if this fact is taken into consideration, the petition for restoration filed by the ancestor of the petitioner in the year 1970 as well as the petition filed by the petitioner in the year 1993, both are barred by limitation. He submits that this aspect of the matter has been properly considered by the revisional authority and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner. It has been argued by the private respondents that they are in possession of the property since 1968-69 and after the death of Ram Swaroop Das Agarwal, the property was formally transferred by way of gift deed in the year 1977. Counsel for the respondents further submits that legality and validity of the permission which has been granted under Section 49 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 by Land Reforms Deputy Collector has no bearing in the matter because irrespective of that permission the transfer was valid in the eyes of law. Counsel for the respondents further submits that legality and validity of the permission which has been granted under Section 49 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 by Land Reforms Deputy Collector has no bearing in the matter because irrespective of that permission the transfer was valid in the eyes of law. He submits that even if this portion of the impugned order that the property was transferred after obtaining due permission from Land Reforms Deputy Collector is ignored then also the petitioners do not have any case and they do not deserve any order from this court for restoration of land in their favour. He further submits that certainly the matter in the instant case has to be examined from the point of view of applicability of Section 46 (4A) of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 wherein a specific period of limitation of 12 years has been provided for restoration of land and in the facts and circumstances of this case in view of two legal points, firstly, the property in question is situated in cantonment area wherein the provisions of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was made applicable only in the year 1982 and secondly, the application for restoration was filed much beyond 12 years from the date of dispossession, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. The counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of full bench passed by Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in AIR 1968 PATNA 302 to submit that hukumnana in this case which is of the year 1940, though unregistered document is coupled by issuance of rent receipts, therefore the unregistered hukumnama will be admissible for collateral purpose of proving the nature of possession. Thus the recorded tenants in this case having been disposed at least in the year 1940, therefore the petitioner has no case and the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 8. Counsel for the respondent-State submits that the impugned order has been rightly passed. There being no illegality or perversity in the impugned order the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. He also submits that there is no dispute that the petitioners do not have any rent receipts in their favour and the private respondents and their predecessor in interest were throughout acknowledged by the State and accordingly the petition for restoration itself is barred by limitation. 9. He also submits that there is no dispute that the petitioners do not have any rent receipts in their favour and the private respondents and their predecessor in interest were throughout acknowledged by the State and accordingly the petition for restoration itself is barred by limitation. 9. After hearing counsels for the parties and after considering the materials on record this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the writ petitioner on account of following facts and reason :- (a) Admittedly, the ancestors of the petitioners were the recorded tenant of the property but in the application for restoration which was filed by them in the year 1993 the date of dispossession has not been mentioned. However, before the original Court they have filed rejoinder and have explained that in the original application filed by Kartik Munda the date of dispossession was mentioned as 1964. Even if this case of the petitioner is taken into consideration, admittedly the property was under Ramgarh Cantonment (Ramgarh cantonment was admittedly declared in the year 1941) the provisions of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was not applicable in the year 1964. The provisions of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 became applicable in the cantonment area only in the year 1982 by virtue of Act 45 of 1982. In this view of the matter, there is no illegality in the so-called alleged transfer in the year 1964 even if the best case of the petitioner is taken into consideration. (b) However, from the perusal of the records and the materials available on record it appears that the ancestors of the petitioner were dispossessed from the property as back as in the year 1940 by way of Sada hukmnama which was coupled with rent receipts issued by the then zamindar and also by State of Bihar after coming into force of Land Reforms Act, 1950. (c) It appears that the private respondents herein are in possession of the property at least since the year 1977 by way of registered gift but the fact remains that the recorded tenant were dispossessed from the property as back as in the year 1940 as there was Sada hukmnama coupled with rent receipts and the land was subsequently transferred by way of registered deed in the year 1959 and thereafter a registered gift deed was executed in the year 1977. The period of limitation for filing an application for restoration of land as prescribed under section 46(4A) is 12 years from the date of transfer. This court fully agrees with the argument of the counsel for the private respondent that the recorded tenant were dispossessed as back as in the year 1936/1940 and which was coupled by the rent receipts issued by the Zamindars and subsequently acknowledged by the State of Bihar after Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and if this fact is taken into consideration, the petition for restoration filed by the ancestor of the petitioner in the year 1970 as well as the petition filed by the petitioner in the year 1993, both are barred by limitation. This court finds that the ratio of the judgment of full bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court reported in AIR 1968 PATNA 302 is fully applicable in the facts and circumstances, wherein, it has been held at para-10 that an unregistered document which is compulsorily registrable when coupled with rent receipts can be relied for a collateral purpose to prove the nature of possession. Para 10 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein below for ready reference : “10. It is true that a valid agricultural lease may be created by a registered instrument as pointed out in Jangal Singh V. Mukund Kumar, AIR 1948 Pat 446, and, if such a registered document is created, delivery of possession is not necessary to prove the title of the lessee. If, however, the lease is not registered, and is, therefore, inadmissible as evidence of title, it will always be open to the tenant concerned to show that he obtained raiyati interest on the strength of actual possession and acceptance of rent by the landlord. There is also no legal bar to a person claiming raiyati interest on two alternative pleas. He may claim such a right op the basis of a written document of lease. If, however, such claim fails on the ground that the document, being compulsorily registrable, was not registered, nevertheless his alternative claim based on actual possession, coupled with acceptance of rent by the landlord, may succeed. He may claim such a right op the basis of a written document of lease. If, however, such claim fails on the ground that the document, being compulsorily registrable, was not registered, nevertheless his alternative claim based on actual possession, coupled with acceptance of rent by the landlord, may succeed. In that case, the un-registered lease will be admissible for the collateral purpose of proving the nature of possession.” This court further finds that this aspect of the matter has been properly considered by the revisional authority and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner. (d) So far as the permission under Section 49 is concerned, which has been granted by Land Reforms Deputy Collector and which has been challenged by the writ petitioner, this Court is of the view that the said permission has no bearing in the matter and this court is further of the view that as the property in question was situated in cantonment area, the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 itself was not applicable and accordingly any transfer which was concluded prior to 1982 cannot be challenged by resorting to provisions of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 in this Cantonment Area. 10. In view of the aforesaid findings this writ petition is dismissed.