ORDER : D.N. PATEL, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original respondent no.5 of W.P.(C) no. 1145 of 2003, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge, vide judgment and order dated 17.12.2009. This writ petition was preferred by the respondent. 2. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, it appears that this appellant is original respondent no.5 of W.P.(C) no. 1145 of 2003. It further appears from the facts of the case that the grandfather of this appellant, namely, Mahli Oraon had purchased the property in question in the year 1937, from one Ishwar Dayal Singh, who is the original owner of the property in question. 3. The original owner of the property was non-tribal whereas the purchaser of the property was tribal. 4. It further appears from the facts of the case that the respondent (original petitioner) of W.P.(C) No. 1145 of 2003 is claiming to be the owner of the property. 5. An application was preferred under Section 71-A of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, by this original owner (non-tribal) before Special Officer of Scheduled Area Regulation, Court at Ranchi, for getting the possession of the property in question in pursuance of the registered sale deed in favour of the grandfather of this appellant namely, Mahli Oraon. This application was allowed by the said officer, vide order dated 26.12.2000 in S.A.R. Case no. 231of 1988-89. 6. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the aforesaid order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, being S.A.R. Appeal no.177 of 2000-01. This appeal was dismissed on 03.09.2001, by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. 7. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the order passed by Deputy Commissioner Ranchi, in S.A.R appeal, a revision application was preferred by respondent before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, being S.A.R revision no.25 of 2002. This revision application was also dismissed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, vide order dated 29.04.2002. These documents were annexed as Annexures 4,5 & 6 to the memo of the writ petition and were challenged by the respondent in W.P.(C) No.1145 of 2003 as the writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge, the present Letters Patent Appeal, has preferred by this appellant. 8. These documents were annexed as Annexures 4,5 & 6 to the memo of the writ petition and were challenged by the respondent in W.P.(C) No.1145 of 2003 as the writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge, the present Letters Patent Appeal, has preferred by this appellant. 8. Having heard and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant is an original transferee in the sale deed of the year 1937, as claimed by this appellant. Thus, it is admitted position of fact that this appellant is claiming possession over the property in pursuance of the aforesaid transfer deed as a transferee from Ishwar Dayal Singh (non-tribal). Thus, Section 71-A of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 is not applicable in the facts of the present case. Transferee of the property cannot prefer an application under Section 71-A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. Only transferor of the property who is tribal and raiyat can prefer such application, for restoration of possession of Section 71-A of the Act, 1908. 9. Those who were transferees of the property and if they are tribal they can prefer such application under Section 71 (A) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. If the transferee is claiming the possession, the only remedy is to prefer a civil suit, before the competent trial court, as per Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code. 10. It has been held by Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Sahu @ Kolha Sahu Versus State of Bihar, reported in 1990 (1) BLJ 124 has held in para 17 as follows: “17. Section 71-A of the Act provides for restoration of possession of a property of a member of the schedule tribe over land which is unlawfully transferred by him. The section provides that if at any time it comes to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that transfer of land belonging to a raiyat who is a member of a scheduled tribe has taken place in contravention of Section 46 or any other provision of the Act or by any fraudulent method, he may after giving reasonable opportunity to the transferee, who is proposed to be evicted, to show cause and after making necessary enquiry in the matter, evict the transferee from such land. The section therefore, contemplates a transfer of land made by a raiyat who is member of a scheduled tribe. The section therefore, contemplates a transfer of land made by a raiyat who is member of a scheduled tribe. It does not contemplate a case where such a raiyat is himself the transferee, and not the transferor. This section seeks to protect the interest of such scheduled tribe raiyats against unscrupulous transferees who may have persuaded such a raiyat to transfer his interest in the land contrary to the provisions of Section 46 of the Act or any other provisions of the Act or by any fraudulent method. Section 46 of the Act provides that before such a transfer is made by such a raiyat, the prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner should be obtained. The Deputy Commissioner is really the guardian of the members of the scheduled tribes caste with the duty to protect their interest. Thus Section 71-A will only apply to a case where such a raiyat belonging to any of the scheduled tribes makes a transfer contrary to the provisions of the Act or who is persuaded to execute a deed of transfer by any fraudulent method. The section does not contemplate a situation where a member of a scheduled tribe can be heard to complain that his transferor is not parting with possession of the land which he claims to have purchased. In the instant case, it was the case of respondent No.5 as would appear from Annexure-6, that he had purchased the land in question from one Ambika Pd. Dubey to whom he had paid a sum of Rs.1050/-. When he went to take possession of the land, the petitioner objected and did not permit him to take possession. When he complained to Ambika Prasad Dubey, his vendor, to put him in possession of the land or to refund the money to him, the said Ambika Pd. Dubey did not either help in getting possession of the land nor did he refund the sale consideration. It is, therefore, obvious that in the instant case, respondent No.5 did not transfer any land to any one. He, in fact, claims to be a purchaser from Ambika Pd. Dubey. In an application under Section 71-A of the Act, respondent No.5 could not have obtained an order for securing possession of the land which he claims to have purchased from Ambika Pd. Dubey. He, in fact, claims to be a purchaser from Ambika Pd. Dubey. In an application under Section 71-A of the Act, respondent No.5 could not have obtained an order for securing possession of the land which he claims to have purchased from Ambika Pd. Dubey. He could have only prayed for restoration of land which he may have transferred to some one provided the conditions laid down in Section 71-A were fulfilled. Ex facie, therefore, no relief could be granted to respondent No.5 under Section 71-A of the Act as respondent No. 5 had not transferred any land to anyone which was in branch of the provisions of the Act or was procured by any fraudulent method. Section 71-A does not contemplate an application by a transferee. It only contemplates an application by a transferor who is a raiyat and a member of a scheduled tribe.” (emphasis supplied) 11. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge, while allowing W.P.(C) no.1145 of 2003, vide judgment and order dated 17.12.2009. We see no reason to take any other view than what is taken by the learned Single Judge. Hence, there is no substance in the Letters Patent Appeal, therefore, the same is, hereby, disposed of. 12. Liberty is reserved with this appellant to prefer a civil suit before the competent trial court. 13. Interim relief if any stands vacated.