JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assisted by Mr. Pandey Ashok, Advocate & Mr. Raj Vardhan, Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. Shahid Khan, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 3. Nobody appears on behalf of the private respondents. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief : “For quashing the respective orders passed by i.e. (1) learned Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi Respondent no.2 vide S.A.R. Revision no. 83 of 1998 on 22.2.99 as contained at Annexure-2 and (ii) learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Khunti Respondent no.4 vide S.A.R. case no. 187/80-81 on 13.6.2000 as contained at Annexure-3 whereby and whereunder after the remand order passed by Respondent no.2 for restoration Respondent no.4 fixed the compensation to the tune of Rs. 5000/- and further directed Respondent nos.5 & 6 to deposit the same within 15 days.” 5. The counsel for the petitioner by referring to the order dated 19.08.1991 passed in C.W.J.C. No.1476 of 1987 (R) as contained in annexure 1 to the writ petition, submits that this is second round of litigation. 6. The counsel for the petitioner on facts submits as under :- (a) The recorded tenant of the property, father of the kamal pahan and grandfather of the respondent no 5 and 6 surrendered the property in question in favour of the then land lord vide registered deed of surrender dated 13.10.1941 and then the landlord settled the land in question in favour of Bandhu Mishra (father of original respondent no 7) in the same year. Bandhu Mishra sold the land in question to the petitioner vide registered deed of sale in the year 1951. (b) He submits that an application under Section 71 A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was filed by Kamal Pahan (father of the respondent no 5 and 6) the decendant of the recorded tenant, against the petitioner in the year 1980 which was numbered as Misc. Case No.187 of 1980-1981 and was allowed vide order dated 11.1.1982, against which an appeal was filed and the appeal was allowed. Against the appellate order Kamal Pahan filed revision which was allowed vide order dated 21.07.1987 and it was held that surrender and settlement being in close proximity of time must be held to be a part of the same transaction and thus the same was invalid. Against the appellate order Kamal Pahan filed revision which was allowed vide order dated 21.07.1987 and it was held that surrender and settlement being in close proximity of time must be held to be a part of the same transaction and thus the same was invalid. The predecessor in interest of the petitioner filed writ petition being C.W.J.C. NO. 1476 of 1987 ( R ) and the Hon'ble High court allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter for fresh decision vide order dated 19.08.1991. The counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this court to para 14 and 15 of the and submitted that this Hon’ble Court held that at para 14 and 15 as under : “14. Further as the petitioners purchased the lands in question from Bandhu Mishra, father of the respondent no.7 in the year 1951, who in turn took settlement of the lands in question from the then landlord in the year 1941, even if possession of Bandhu Mishra was illegal, his possession will be tagged along with the possession of the petitioner for the purpose of computing the period of limitation in as much as the petitioners purchased the land in question by virtue of a registered instrument from the aforementioned Bandhu Mishra. 15. As the matter has not been considered by the respondent no 2 and 4 from this angle, in my opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained.” (c) Pursuant to the said order the land Reforms Deputy Collector after remand formulated two points, whether the surrender and settlement are outcome of the same transaction and whether the case is barred by law of limitations. The land Reforms Deputy Collector held that the surrender and settlement was part of the same transaction and held that the possession of the vendor of the ancestor of the petitioner will not be tagged with the possession of Bandhu Mishra and accordingly allowed the application for restoration. Against the appellate order the petitioner preferred an appeal which was numbered as S.A.R. Appeal No. 19 R 15/1998-99 and the learned Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal at the admission stage, itself. Against the appellate order the petitioner preferred an appeal which was numbered as S.A.R. Appeal No. 19 R 15/1998-99 and the learned Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal at the admission stage, itself. Against the appellate order a revision was filed before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi which was numbered as S.A.R. Revision No. 83 / 98 and was disposed of vide order dated 22.02.1999 and the revision was partly allowed by resorting to third proviso to section 71 A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act,1908 and the land was directed to be restored to the descendant of the recorded tenant provided they pay compensation to the petitioner and the matter was remitted to the Special officer S.A.R., Khuti for determination of compensation. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional authority held that the surrender and settlement were part of the same transaction and was a result of fraud in order to avoid the provision of section 46 of the aforesaid Act of 1908 and that the predecessors of the petitioners had come in possession of the property by purchase through registered deed in the year 1951. The revisional authority has also given a specific finding that the application for restoration was filed in the year 1980 after the period of 39 years from the date of dispossession taking the date of dispossession of the recorded tenant in the year 1941 by deed of registered surrender and subsequent settlement in favour of Bandhu Mishra. However, the revisional authority held that even if the period of limitation is taken as 30 years the petitioners have acquired title by way of adverse possession. The said authority held that there was contravention of Section 46 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act and held that the land in question can be restored to the successors of recorded tenants only under 3rd proviso of Section 71 A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. Therefore, the said authority exercised the power and remitted the matter to the Special Officer, S.A.R. Khunti for the purposes of fixation of compensation. (d) Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute that the private respondents herein were dispossessed by virtue of registered surrender and settlement executed as back as in the year 1941 and after the order of remand the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector had framed two issues. (d) Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute that the private respondents herein were dispossessed by virtue of registered surrender and settlement executed as back as in the year 1941 and after the order of remand the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector had framed two issues. He further submits that the revisional authority ought to have examined the legality and validity of the orders involved in the case and could not have exercised the power under 3rd proviso to Section 71-A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. He further submits that the petitioner herein is not claiming any adverse possession but the specific case of the petitioner is that they have entered into possession by virtue of registered documents and the private respondents herein were dispossessed from the property as back as in the year 1941 by virtue of registered document and subsequently the petitioner has purchased the property in the year 1951. He submits that otherwise also such case does not call for exercise of power under 3rd proviso to Section 71 A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. Counsel for the petitioner submits that they have not taken the compensation the private respondents who might have deposited it in the treasury. (e) Counsel for the petitioner points out that an order for delivery of possession was issued in favour of the private respondents against which the petitioners had filed revision before the revisional authority which was numbered as S.A.R. Revision No. 83 of 1998 and the stay order was passed coupled with a direction that status quo ante shall remain as on 1.08.1998. He submits that on 1.8.1998 it was the petitioners who were in possession of the property and accordingly the petitioners were never dispossessed from the property. He further submits that the petition was filed by the opposite party to recall order dated 1.08.1998 but that was also dismissed vide order dated 13.10.1998. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioners are in possession of the property and it is not correct to say that the private respondents are in possession of the property. 7. He further submits that the petition was filed by the opposite party to recall order dated 1.08.1998 but that was also dismissed vide order dated 13.10.1998. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioners are in possession of the property and it is not correct to say that the private respondents are in possession of the property. 7. Counsel for the respondent-State submits that the impugned order has been rightly passed and he submits that although the private respondents are not appearing in this case but they have filed a counter-affidavit wherein they have stated that they were given the possession of the property on 07.08.1998 and they have deposited the compensation amount before the Court. He also submits that the private respondents herein had filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2176 of 1999 (R) wherein, the order of the Commissioner was challenged but the same was dismissed vide order dated 08.03.2001. 8. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this court finds that admittedly the recorded tenant was dispossessed from the property as back as in the year 1941 and in connection with which the registered documents were also executed. Subsequently the property was settled with Bandhu Mishra by the then land lord and the ancestor of the petitioner had purchased the property by virtue of sale deed of the year 1951 from Bandhu Mishra. Therefore, this Court finds that the instant case is not a case of adverse possession of the petitioners rather the petitioners are claiming by virtue of registered documents. This Court further finds that the private respondents herein have filed their application for restoration of land under Section 71 A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 after expiry of more than 39 years from the date of dispossession and accordingly this court finds that the application for restoration of land was filed beyond reasonable period of time from the date of dispossession. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the case reported in (2004 )8 SCC 340 while interpreting the word “at any time” used in Section 71A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 has held in para-14 as follows :- “14. We shall not examine the last argument of Shri Narasimha that the transfer was fraudulent. Even on this, we are afraid that the appellants are entitled to succeed. We shall not examine the last argument of Shri Narasimha that the transfer was fraudulent. Even on this, we are afraid that the appellants are entitled to succeed. We need not go into the details of the transaction for we may even assume that the transfer was fraudulent. Even then, as held in Ibrahimpatnam the power under Section 71-A 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 71 – A 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 our view from the observations made by this Court in Jai Mangal Oraon case 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 applies.” 9. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, this Court finds that the application which was filed by the ancestors of private respondents herein for restoration of land was barred by limitation. This finding that the application was barred by limitation has also been recorded by the revisional authority but the revisional authority suo moto has exercised the power under 3rd proviso of Section 71 A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and has totally misdirected himself in law as it was never the case of the petitioner that have perfected their title by way of adverse possession rather the specific case of the petitioner was they have acquired the property through registered documents. Further this Court finds that after the order of remand by the Hon’ble High Court the Land Reforms Deputy Collector had framed only two issues and no issue was framed in connection with exercise of powers under 3rd proviso of Section 71-A of the said Act. Further this Court finds that after the order of remand by the Hon’ble High Court the Land Reforms Deputy Collector had framed only two issues and no issue was framed in connection with exercise of powers under 3rd proviso of Section 71-A of the said Act. The revisional authority was examining the validity and legality of the orders passed by the LRDC and the appellate authority and there was no occasion for the revisional authority to hold that the petitioners would be entitled to compensation under 3rd proviso of Section 71 A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is inclined to set-aside the order dated 22.2.1999 to the extent it holds that the petitioners had perfected their title by way of adverse possession and also to the extent of the direction which has been issued to restore the possession of the property involved in this case to the private respondents under the provisions of 3rd proviso of Section 71 A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 upon payment of compensation to the petitioner. This Court finds that the application for restoration of land which was filed by the private respondents herein was filed beyond reasonable period and accordingly was barred by limitation and the private respondents are not entitled to restoration of the land involved in this case. In such circumstances the revisional authority ought to have dismissed the revision petition filed by the private respondents who are the descendants of the recorded tenants. So far as the present possession of the land is concerned, it is the specific case of the counsel appearing for the petitioner that they are in possession of the property, so there is no requirement for passing any further order or direction. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed.