JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Vikash Kumar, counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. S.J. Roy, counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 6 & 7. 3. Heard Mr. Sahil, J.C. To S.C. (L&C) counsel appearing for the respondent-State. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: (a) for quashing the order dated 26.11.2007 passed by the respondent no. 4 in S.A.R. Case No. 69/04-05 (Annexure-3) (b) For quashing the order dated 21.01.2008 passed by Respondent No. 3 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 68/07-08 (Annexure-4) and (c) For quashing the order dated 06.04.2009 passed by the Respondent No. 2 in S.A.R. Revision Case No. 029 of 2009 (Annexure-5) to the writ petition. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submits as under:- (a). The petitioners are sons of Budhna Oraon who was the absolute owner of the land measuring area of 12 decimal under Khata No. 69, Plot No. 388 situated at Mauza-Semar Toli, Kanke, Thana No. 156, P.S. Kanke, District Ranchi since 15.02.1948 and the same stood recorded in the name of Tola Oraon as “Kaymi” in Revisional Survey Khatiyan 1932. (b). The petitioners and respondent nos. 6 & 7 are by caste Oraon and are governed by the Oraon Customary Law in the matter of succession and inheritance. (c). Vide sale deed dated 15.02.1948, the recorded raiyat, Tola Oraon transferred a piece of land measuring an area of 12 decimal of Khata No. 69. R.S. Plot No. 388 under Mauza-Kanke (Semar Toli) to father of the petitioner vide unregistered Sale deed on plain paper for consideration of total sale amount of Rs. 100/- only and on the same day, the recorded raiyat delivered the physical possession by an unregistered document to the father of the petitioner, even as per the petitioners. It is submitted that the father of the petitioner and subsequently, the petitioners were in peaceful possession of the property. (d). A petition u/s 46 Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was filed against the petitioners being S.A.R. Case No. 69 of 2004-05 after a period of 56 years for restoration of land. (e). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the specific plea was taken before the S.A.R. Court that the proceeding itself is barred by limitation but inspite of such plea having been taken the authority did not consider the aforesaid plea and allowed the restoration against the petitioners. (f). (e). Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the specific plea was taken before the S.A.R. Court that the proceeding itself is barred by limitation but inspite of such plea having been taken the authority did not consider the aforesaid plea and allowed the restoration against the petitioners. (f). Against this the petitioners filed an appeal being S.A.R. Appeal No. 68/07-08 before the respondent no. 3 and the said authority also rejected the appeal of the petitioner vide order dated 21.01.2008. (g). Subsequently, the petitioners again being aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2008 filed S.A.R. Revision Case No. 029 of 2009 before the Respondent no. 2 but the same was rejected vide order dated 06.04.2009 at the admission stage. (h). Counsel for the petitioners submits that inspite of point of limitation having been taken at the initial stage itself but this point was not considered by any of the authorities whose orders are under challenge before this Court. He submits that there is enough material on record to come to a conclusion that the application for restoration was itself time barred. 6. Counsel for the respondent-State as well as the private respondents submit that the petitioner has lost before all the three authorities and accordingly, no case is made out by the petitioners for interference of this Court. However the counsel for the respondents could not dispute that the point of limitation has not been considered by the authorities below. 7. After considering the arguments of the parties and going through the materials on record, this Court is inclined to entertain the writ petition mainly on the ground that the point of limitation which has been taken by the writ petitioner at the initial stage itself has neither been considered by the original authority, nor considered by the Appellate Authority nor considered by the Revisional Authority and accordingly the impugned orders are perverse so far as the point of limitation is concerned. Accordingly all the impugned orders i.e. order dated 26.11.2007 passed by the respondent no. 4 in S.A.R. Case No. 69/04-05 (Annexure-3), order dated 21.01.2008 passed by Respondent No. 3 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 68/07-08 and the order dated 06.04.2009 passed by the respondent no. 2 in S.A.R. Revision Case No. 029 of 2009 are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the S.A.R., Sadar, Ranchi for fresh consideration. 8. 4 in S.A.R. Case No. 69/04-05 (Annexure-3), order dated 21.01.2008 passed by Respondent No. 3 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 68/07-08 and the order dated 06.04.2009 passed by the respondent no. 2 in S.A.R. Revision Case No. 029 of 2009 are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the S.A.R., Sadar, Ranchi for fresh consideration. 8. At this counsel for the petitioners submits that they are ready to appear before the Special Officer, S.A.R., Sadar Ranchi, in the 2nd week of May. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the parties are directed to appear before the Special Officer, S.A.R., Sadar, Ranchi on 14.05.2018 and upon appearance of the parties, the Special Officer, S.A.R., Sadar, Ranchi is directed to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties. 9. It is also made clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of the case. 10. The writ petition is, hereby, disposed of.