JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the captioned writ application, the petitioners inter alia pray for quashing the order dated 17.08.1981 passed by the learned Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi in S.A.R. Case No.365 of 1979-80, vide Annexure-5, whereunder the order has been passed for restoration of 2.05 acres of land bearing Revisional Survey Plot No.153 of Khata No.88 situated at village Lalpur to respondent no.5 and 6 under Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act and the order dated 23.06.1998 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in S.A.R. (Appeal) no.170 R15 of 1997-98, vide Annexure-7, pertaining to dismissal of the appeal by the respondent no.3 and the order dated 17.05.2003 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in S. A. R. Revision No.80/1998, vide Annexure-8 to the writ application, pertaining to dismissal of the revision. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts as delineated in the writ application is that the original petitioner no.1 and 2 were the partners of the firm in the name and style as M/s Bharat Spun Pipe Company, having its office at 83, Hazaribagh Road, Ranchi. One Sukhlal Pahan was the recorded owner of the land of Khata No.88 of Plot no.153 to the extent of 2.05 Acres. The said land was settled in favour of Smt. Namita Rani Das in the year 1946 and after settlement of the said land she continued to possess the said land. Since there was some dispute with regard to aforesaid land between recorded Bhuinhardar, a title suit being T.S. No.408 of 1960 was filed in the Court of Munsif, Ranchi for declaration of title and for confirmation of possession. The said suit was decreed in terms of compromise vide judgment and decree dated 17.08.1960 and thereafter the said Namita Rani Das was in exclusive possession of the said land. Due to legal necessities said Namita Rani Das sold 0.685 acres of land out of R.S Plot no.153 to Indian Paviours (P) Ltd. by virtue of registered sale deed dated 01.10.1962. The said Indian Paviours (P) Ltd. after purchase constructed the building over the said land. Subsequently the said company sold the said land to one Subhash Kumar Modi-petitioner no.2 on 29.01.1970 for a valuable consideration and the petitioner no.2 continued to have peaceful possession from the date of purchase. The said Indian Paviours (P) Ltd. after purchase constructed the building over the said land. Subsequently the said company sold the said land to one Subhash Kumar Modi-petitioner no.2 on 29.01.1970 for a valuable consideration and the petitioner no.2 continued to have peaceful possession from the date of purchase. Smt. Namita Rani Das again sold 0.685 acres of land to Bharat Spun Pipe Company-petitioner no.3 by virtue of registered sale deed dated 01.10.1962 and put the petitioner no.3 in possession of the same. It has been averred in the writ application that the petitioners by virtue of the purchase of the aforesaid land became the owner having absolute and indefeasible title. The respondent no.5 and 6 filed an application for restoration of the lands under the provisions of Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act against the petitioner no.1 before the Special Officer, Civil Areas Regulation, Ranchi bearing S.A.R Case No.1075 of 1974. The learned Special Officer vide order dated 20.09.1977 stayed the proceeding since the land was within the municipal limits and the case was re-opened which was numbered as S.A.R Case No.365/1979-80. The Special Officer, Civil Area Regulation passed an order on 17.08.1981 restoring the land to the respondent no.5 and 6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner no.1 preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Ranchi which was registered as S.A.R Appeal No.24/139-R15 of 1981-82 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 13.01.1985. Against the order of the appellate authority a revision was preferred before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi which was numbered as Ranchi Revenue Revision No.107/1986 and the said revision was dismissed vide order dated 23.09.1986. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order petitioners filed writ application before the Hon''ble High Court being CWJC No.2066 of 1987(R) and the Hon''ble Court vide order dated 25.07.1997 remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi for fresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the remand order, as evident from Annexure-6 to the writ application. After remand of the case by the Hon''ble Court, Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in S.A.R (Appeal) No.170 R15 of 1997-98 passed an order dated 23.06.1998 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner preferred revision before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi which was registered as Ranchi S.A.R Revision No.80 of 1998 and the respondent no.2 vide order dated 17.05.2003 has dismissed the revision as per Annexure-8 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders vide Annexures-5, 7 and 8 of the writ application, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Learned senior counsel on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously urged that the order passed by the respondent authorities are in derogation of provision of Section 48(4) of the C.N.T Act. Learned senior counsel further submits that the claim of the respondent nos.5 and 6 for restoration of the land under Section 71(A) of the C.N.T. Act was hopelessly barred by limitation. Learned senior counsel further submits that the impugned orders are in utter disregard of the judicial pronouncement. Learned senior counsel further submits that the predecessors in interest of the petitioners remained in peaceful tenancy and uninterrupted possession of the land in dispute for more than two decades prior to coming into force of Bihar Scheduled Area Regulation, 1969. Therefore, by efflux of time, the respondent no.5 and 6 have extinguished their rights and, therefore, the land in question ought not to have been restored to them. Learned senior counsel further submits that the respondent no.3 has decided the appeal without calling for the Lower Court Records, which is in violation of Section 215 (5) of the C.N.T. Act. Learned senior counsel further submits that despite remand Deputy Commissioner has not considered the Lower Court Record. 4. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has referred to the decision reported in [1981 BLT (Rep.) 253 (HC)], [ (1992) 2 BLJR 986 ] (para-5), 1993 (1) PLJR 368 and 1993 (1) PLJR 342 . 5. Learned senior counsel further submits that despite remand Deputy Commissioner has not considered the Lower Court Record. 4. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has referred to the decision reported in [1981 BLT (Rep.) 253 (HC)], [ (1992) 2 BLJR 986 ] (para-5), 1993 (1) PLJR 368 and 1993 (1) PLJR 342 . 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.5 and 6, controverting the averments made in the writ application, wherein it has been submitted that the land in question was recorded in the name of Lodhra Pahan in Khewat No.7 as "Bakasht Bhuinhari Pahnai land WASTE BHOOT PUJA, PAHAN BADALNE KA RIWAZ NAHIN HAI, PAHAN KHANDANI HAI." A xerox copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. It has further been submitted that in the revisional survey record of rights (Khatian) the land is recorded in the name of aforesaid Lodhra Pahan as tenure holder and the nature of land is mentioned as Bakast Bhuinhari Pahnai land as evident from Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. Respondent nos.5 and 6 are the successors of the recorded tenure hold and Pahan of the locality. It has further been submitted that the land in question cannot be used for any other purpose other than Bhut Puja which is done by Adibasi to perform religious duties. It has further been submitted that the land was recorded in the name of Lodhra Pahan and not Sukhlal Pahan. The recorded tenure holder could not have settled the land in question in the year 1946 as the land was/is for religious purposes of tribal. It has further been submitted that if the compromise decree has been filed by the petitioners either before this Hon''ble Court or before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. Therefore, the so called compromise decree in Title Suit No.408 of 1960 which resulted in compromise on 17.08.1960 is null and void, without jurisdiction having no legal sanctity. It has further been submitted that as per several judgments of this Court the so called compromise and collusive decree is "fraud against statute." It is the settled principle of law that fraud vitiates all solemn acts which can be challenged in any court at any time. Further, it has been submitted that it is settled principle of law that fraud and justice never dwell together. Further, it has been submitted that it is settled principle of law that fraud and justice never dwell together. It has further been submitted that the petitioners have claimed their title by means of oral settlement in the year 1946 followed by compromise decree in the year 1960 and alternatively they have claimed their title by adverse possession which is completely inconsistent to each other and thus the plea of adverse possession is not tenable at all. Since the respondents have come up with specific plea of dispossession i.e. 4-5 years ago from the date of filing of restoration petition i.e. S.A.R Case No.1075 of 1974 filed on 12.11.1974 and thus it is well within 12 years to attract Section 48(4). Moreover, 30 years limitation period is provided under Article 65 of the Limitation Act (Bihar Amendment). 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondents has referred to decision of this Court reported in 2007 (4) JLJR 210 (Para-14, 15 & 21). So far as the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is concerned that Deputy Commissioner without receiving the LCR has decided the case nor there is any controversion of the statement made in para 29 of the writ petition. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents submits that all the relevant records were brought on record by both the parties before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and on perusal of the record it transpires that only three Xerox copies of certified copies of sale deed have been filed on behalf of the petitioners. Further, no plea has been taken in the revision filed before the learned Commissioner, Ranchi regarding non availability of lower court records. Further it has been submitted that Section 71(A) of the CNT Act is a beneficiary legislation in favour of aboriginal and it has retrospective operation and it is applicable even to Bhuinhari land. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 and 6 has referred to the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Amrendranath Dutta vs. State of Bihar & Ors.,1983 AIR Patna 183 (FB). In this regard, learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 and 6 has referred to the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Amrendranath Dutta vs. State of Bihar & Ors.,1983 AIR Patna 183 (FB). In Section 71-A it is stipulated that at any time it comes to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that any transfer is made in contravention to any provision of the CNT Act which includes the provisions of Section 48 also empowered the Deputy Commissioner to pass an order of restoration of possession in favour of aboriginal. Further learned counsel for the respondents submits that transfer of any immovable property can be made by registered documents as provided under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act in the instant case there is no document what to speak of registered document of transfer by the recorded tenure holder in favour of Namita Rani Das. 7. In order to appreciate the rival contention, it would be apposite to refer to the relevant extract of the provisions of the CNT Act i.e. Section 46, 48 and 71-A, which are as follows: "46.Restrictions on transfer of their right by raiyat.-(1) No transfer by a Raiyat of his right in his holding or any portion thereof,- (a) by mortgage or lease for any period expressed or implied which exceeds or might in any possible event exceed five years, or (b) by sale, gift or any other contract or agreement, shall be valid to any extent. 48. Restrictions of the transfer of Bhuinhari tenure.-(1) A member of a ''Bhuinhari'' family may transfer any ''Bhuinhari'' tenure as defined in the Chota Nagpur Tenures Act, 1869 (Ben. Act 2 of 1869) which is held by him or any portion thereof in the same manner and to the same extent as an aboriginal ''raiyat'' may transfer his right in his holding under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 46. (2) The [State] Government may make rules permitting a member of a ''Bhuinhari'' family holds any ''Bhuinhari'' tenure to transfer such tenure or any portion thereof by sale, gift, exchange or will subject to such restrictions and conditions as may be specified in the said rules. (3) Save as provided in sub-section (1) or in any rules made under sub-section (2), a transfer of a ''Bhuinhari'' tenure or any portion thereof shall not be valid to any extent. (3) Save as provided in sub-section (1) or in any rules made under sub-section (2), a transfer of a ''Bhuinhari'' tenure or any portion thereof shall not be valid to any extent. (4) If a member of a ''Bhuinhari'' family transfers any ''Bhuinhari'' tenure which is held by him or any portion of such tenure in contravention of the provisions of this Section or on the expiration of the period for which any such member has transferred his ''Bhuinhari'' tenure or any portion thereof in accordance with the provisions of this Section or any rules made thereunder, the Deputy Commissioner may, of his own motion or on the application of such member eject the transferee and place such member in possession of the said ''Bhuinhari'' tenure or portion at any time within twelve years from the date of the transfer, or from the expiration of the period of the transfer, as the case may be. (5) A member of a ''Bhuinhari'' family, who holds land in any village in which a ''Bhuinhari'' tenure as defined in the Chota Nagpur Tenures Act, 1869 (Ben. Act 2 of 1869) is situated may transfer such land in the same manner and to the same extent as an occupancy ''raiyat'' transfers his right in his holding under sub-section (3) of Section 46, and sub-section (4) of this Section shall apply to such land in the same way as it applies to a ''Bhuinhari'' tenure. (6) if any member of a ''Bhuinhari'' family transfers his ''Bhuinhari'' tenure or any portion thereof by a lease, the lessee shall not acquire a right of occupancy therein. (6) if any member of a ''Bhuinhari'' family transfers his ''Bhuinhari'' tenure or any portion thereof by a lease, the lessee shall not acquire a right of occupancy therein. 71-A.Power to restore possession to member of the Scheduled Tribes over land unlawfully transferred.- if at any time, it comes to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that transfer of land belonging to a raiyat [or a Mundari Khunt-Kattidar or a Bhuinhari] who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes has taken place in contravention of Section 46 [or Section 48 or Section 240] or any other provisions of this Act or by any fraudulent method, [including decrees obtained in suit by fraud and collusion] he may, after giving reasonable opportunity to the transfer, who is proposed to be evicted, to show cause and after making necessary inquiry in the matter, evict the transferee from such land without payment of compensation and restore it to the transferor or his heir, or, in case the transferor or his heir is not available or is not willing to agree to such restoration, re-settle it with another Raiyat belonging to Scheduled Tribes according to the village custom for the disposal of an abandoned holding." 8. In Section 71-A of the C.N.T Act, it is stipulated that at any time it comes to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that any transfer is made in contravention to any provision of the CNT Act which includes the provisions of Section 48 also empowers the Deputy Commissioner to pass an order of restoration of possession in favour of aboriginal. And also SubSection (3) of Section 46 provides that no transfer in contravention of SubSection (1) shall be recognized as valid by any court whatever in exercise of civil, criminal or revenue jurisdiction. 9. On conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions and decisions reported supra, this Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders dated 17.08.1981 passed by the Special Officer, Ranchi, vide Annexure-5, the order dated 23.06.1998 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, vide Annexure-7 and the order dated 17.05.2003 passed by the learned Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, Vide Annexure-8, therefore, the impugned orders do not warrant any interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed. 11. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition sans merit is dismissed. 11. Consequently, I.A. No.969 of 2016, I.A. No.4733 of 2017 and I.A. No.4850 of 2017 stands disposed of.