JUDGMENT Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. - Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. Amritanshu Singh, learned A.C. to S.C. Mines-II, and Mr. J.J. Sanga, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent nos.2 to 6. 2. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 26.07.2013, passed in S.A.R. Revision No.31/2007, passed by learned Commissioner Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa. Further prayer is made for a direction for upholding the order passed in S.A.R. Case No.10/1990-91 passed by learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Chaibasa. 3. The facts of the case is that the petitioners are the owners of a piece of land situated at village Gitilpi being Plot No.448 under Khata No.70 measuring around 0.90 decimals which was purchased by their predecessor late Dwarka Das Shah and was under his rightful possession since the year 1947 without any interruption or disturbance whatsoever but all of a sudden in the year 1990 the predecessor of respondent nos.2 to 6 namely Late Sukhlal Sawaiyan son of Late Pandu Ladura Ho filed a case for restoration of possession in terms of Section 71A of the CNT Act, 1908 before the learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Chaibasa being S.A.R. Case No.10/1990-91. The said proceeding under Section 71A of the CNT Act was contested by the petitioners and after hearing both the parties, learned Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Sadar, Chaibasa came to the conclusion that since the land in question was non-agricultural in nature and was categorized to be a chhaparbandi land, the provision as laid down under Section 71A of the CNT Act, would not apply and therefore, the S.A.R. Case being S.A.R. Case No.10/1990-91 was dismissed vide order dated 28.04.1992. The predecessor of respondent nos.2 to 6 being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 28.04.1992 preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commisioner, Singhbhum West at Chaibasa being S.A.R. Appeal No.11/92 under Section 215 of the CNT Act. However, said Late Sukhlal Sawaiyan (the appellant in S.A.R. Appeal No.11/92) filed a petition dated 20.08.1998, praying therein for permission to withdraw the said appeal being S.A.R. Appeal No.11/1992. The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa accorded permission to the appellant to withdraw the appeal and accordingly the being S.A.R. Appeal No.11/1992-93 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 04.03.2003. However, said Late Sukhlal Sawaiyan (the appellant in S.A.R. Appeal No.11/92) filed a petition dated 20.08.1998, praying therein for permission to withdraw the said appeal being S.A.R. Appeal No.11/1992. The Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa accorded permission to the appellant to withdraw the appeal and accordingly the being S.A.R. Appeal No.11/1992-93 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 04.03.2003. After dismissal of the appeal, the petitioners denied to be in peaceful possession of the property in question till the year 2007 when surprisingly a revision was preferred against the order dated 04.03.2003 passed in S.A.R. Appeal No.11/1992-93 before the Commissioner Singhbhum (Kolhan Circle) Chaibasa being S.A.R. Revision No.31/07, praying therein for setting aside the order dated 04.03.2003 passed in S.A.R. Appeal No.11/1992-93. During the pendency of the revision petition, filed before the Commissioner (Kolhan Circle) Chaibasa, one of the applicant Sukhlal Sawaiyan passed away in the year 2009 and the respondent nos.2 to 6 being his legal heirs were substituted by the learned court below. The Commissioner (Kolhan Circle) Chaibasa was pleased to allow the revision application vide his order dated 26.07.2013 and remand the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa for adjudication and passing of a fresh order in terms of Section 71A of the CNT Act. Aggrieved with the revisional order passed by the Commissioner, this writ petition has been filed. 4. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that all of a sudden, the revision was filed after lapse of four years. He further submits that Section 231 of the CNT Act, 1908 provides that where no period of limitation is provided, it should be filed within one year from the date of accruing of the cause of action. He further submits that there is no provision for condoning the delay while deciding the revision petition by the Commissioner. He further submits that without discussing the matter on merit, the impugned order has been passed and on the point of limitation, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further submits that there is no cogent reason assigned in the impugned order as to why it has been remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner when there is already an order in that appeal for withdrawal. 5. Per contra, Mr. He further submits that there is no cogent reason assigned in the impugned order as to why it has been remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner when there is already an order in that appeal for withdrawal. 5. Per contra, Mr. Sanga, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent nos.2 to 6 submits that there is no illegality in order passed by the Commissioner in revision case. Mr. Amritanshu Singh, learned A.C. to S.C. Mines-II appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand also contended that there is no illegality in the order of the Commissioner. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties this Court finds that the S.A.R. revision case was filed in the year 2007 whereas the appellate order of withdrawal is dated 04.03.2003 which is annexed as Annexure-4. Section 231 provided one year for filing the limitation from the date of the accruing of the cause of action. The revisional court has not given any finding on the ground of limitation and without condoning the delay, if any, the revisional order has been passed and the matter was remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner. In that view of the matter the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.07.2013 passed in S.A.R. Revision No.31/2007 by the Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan Circle) Chaibasa is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Commissioner, to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and respondents in accordance with law. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of. 8. I.A. No.2802 of 2018 and I.A. No.2803 of 2018 also stands disposed of.