ORDER : S.N. Pathak, J. In view of outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, case has been taken up through Video Conferencing and heard at length. Concerned lawyers have no objection with regard to the proceeding which has been held through Video Conferencing and there is no complaint in respect to audio and video clarity and quality and after hearing at length, the matter is being disposed of finally. PRAYER 2. Petitioner has knocked door of this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 21.04.2012, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla in SAR Appeal No. 41 of 2007, by which concerned respondent has been pleased to allow appeal preferred by the respondent nos. 6 to 13 and has been further pleased to set aside the order dated 03.11.1999, passed by the Additional Collector, Gumla in SAR Case No. 207/ 1992 – 93. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the concerned respondents to restore the land in question under the provisions of Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 in favour of the petitioner. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The factual exposition as has been stated in the writ petition is that the land falling under Khata No. 4, Plot Nos. 31, 33, 56, 58, 252 and 332 of village – Nimra under Sisai Circle of district Gumla having an area of 4.17 Acres was recorded in the name of Karia Oraon and Lecha Oraon, who are ancestors of the petitioner. Further, the land falling under Khata No. 21, Plot Nos. 203 and 306 of village – Nimra under Sisai Circle, District – Gumla, having an area of 1.75 Acres was recorded in the name of Magna Oraon, who is also ancestor of the petitioner. The said piece of land were mortgaged with the predecessor-in-interest of respondent nos. 6 to 13 namely Harak Sahu, Rupnath Sahu and Sohar Sahu and therefore, during the survey settlement of the year 1926, the land under Khata No. 4 was shown to be under illegal possession of the said persons in the remarks column. After redemption of the mortgage, the recorded tenants Karia Oraon and Lecha Oraon came in possession of land situated under Khata No. 4 and remained in peaceful possession thereof till their life time by cultivating the land. Around the year 1970, the recorded tenants died and after their death, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent nos. After redemption of the mortgage, the recorded tenants Karia Oraon and Lecha Oraon came in possession of land situated under Khata No. 4 and remained in peaceful possession thereof till their life time by cultivating the land. Around the year 1970, the recorded tenants died and after their death, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent nos. 6 to 13 came in possession over the said land illegally and in contravention of the provisions of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 by dispossessing the petitioner and other legal heirs of the recorded tenant. Petitioner was told that the said persons had acquired title on the basis of deed of surrender and settlement. On enquiry, it was found that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent nos. 6 to 13 had fraudulently manufactured a deed of surrender said to have been executed by Karia Oraon in favour of the ex-landlord and also a deed of settlement by the ex-landlord in favour of Harak Sahu. 4. Upon being illegally dispossessed from the land, petitioner instituted SAR Case No. 207/1992 – 93 before the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Gumla – cum – SAR Officer under Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. On being summoned, the predecessor-ininterest of respondent nos. 6 to 13 appeared and claimed title and possession on the basis of deed of surrender dated 27.04.940 executed by Karia Oraon in favour of the ex-landlord and deed of settlement dated 13.02.1943, executed by the ex-landlord in favour of Harak Sahu. Insofar as the land under Khata No. 4 is concerned, the said respondent claimed title over the land situated under Khata No. 21 on the basis of a registered deed of surrender dated 01.08.1939 executed by Jauni Orain, widow of Mangra Oraon and a deed of settlement dated 13.02.1947 executed by the exlandlord in favour of Harak Sahu. The records of SAR Case No. 207 of 1992 – 93 was called for by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla and thereafter transferred to the Court of Additional Collector, Gumla for trial and disposal. After hearing the parties and perusing materials on record, the Additional Collector, Gumla allowed the application of the petitioner filed under Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and ordered for restoration under the proviso 3 thereof. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi vide SAR Appeal No. 146 of 1999. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi vide SAR Appeal No. 146 of 1999. However, the respondent no. 2, by exercising his appellate jurisdiction, vide order dated 09.04.2007 remanded the matter back to the Court of Deputy Commissioner, Gumla with certain observations effecting merits of the case. Upon remand, the SAR Appeal No. 41 of 2007 was registered before the Court of Deputy Commissioner, Gumla and the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla by an order dated 21.04.2012, allowed the appeal of the respondent nos. 6 to 13 and further set aside the order dated 03.11.1999, passed in SAR Case No. 207 of 1992 – 93. The original respondents Ram Chandra Sahu and Jai Gobind Sahu died during pendency of the appeal before the respondent nos. 2 as well as the appeal before the respondent no. 3 and have been substituted by their legal heirs. It has further been contended that there is a provision of revision available to the petitioner against the impugned order, the same is not an efficacious remedy in as much as revisional authority while sitting in appeal has already adjudicated upon merits of the case and has made several observations touching merits of the case. The impugned order dated 21.04.2012 passed by respondent no. 3 in SAR Appeal No 41 of 2007 is illegal and without jurisdiction and as such, petitioner has preferred this writ petition. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER 6. Mr. Rohit Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vociferously argues that deeds of surrender relied upon by the predecessor in interest of respondent nos. 6 to 13 is against the provisions of Section 72 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. Further, the deed of surrender dated 27.04.1940 is said to have been executed only by Karia Oraon even though the land were jointly recorded in the name of Karia Oraon and Lecha Oraon. Similarly, the registered deed of surrender executed on 01.08.1939 is said to have been executed by the widow of Mangra Oraon whereas it is well settled that as per customary laws of Oraon, a widow has only life interest and has no title to the land of her husband and, therefore, she could not have executed the deed of surrender. Similarly, the registered deed of surrender executed on 01.08.1939 is said to have been executed by the widow of Mangra Oraon whereas it is well settled that as per customary laws of Oraon, a widow has only life interest and has no title to the land of her husband and, therefore, she could not have executed the deed of surrender. Learned counsel further argues that contention of the respondents that Lecha Oraon, the Joint Raiyat of Khata No. 4 was said to have unheard of and had left the village is absolutely false. Said Lecha Oraon never left the village and he died in the village Nimra leaving behind his son Arjun Oraon. 7. Learned counsel further argues that there is a provision of revision available to the petitioner against the impugned order but the same is not an efficacious remedy in as much as the revisional authority while sitting in appeal, has already adjudicated upon merits of the case and has made several observations touching merits of the case. Learned counsel further argues that the impugned order dated 21.04.2012, passed by the respondent no. 3 in SAR Appeal No. 41 of 2007, is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction. The respondent no. 3 could not have relied upon a letter alleged to have been issued by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector addressed to the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi while deciding the appeal. The respondent no. 3 could not have allowed the appeal of the respondent nos. 6 to 13 similarly by relying upon letter dated 27.07.1974, issued by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector. Mere letter of a government officer cannot be said to be a law for deciding judicial/ quasi judicial proceedings. Learned counsel further argues that the respondent no. 3 erred in law as well as on facts by dismissing application under Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 of the petitioner on the ground of limitation. The respondent no. 3 was influenced by the observations made by the respondent no. 2 in order dated 09.04.2007 and as such the impugned order suffers from non-application of judicious mind. Learned counsel further argues that the respondent no. 3 without going into merits of the dispute made out a new case which was not even pleaded by respondent nos. 6 to 13 while allowing appeal of the respondents. 2 in order dated 09.04.2007 and as such the impugned order suffers from non-application of judicious mind. Learned counsel further argues that the respondent no. 3 without going into merits of the dispute made out a new case which was not even pleaded by respondent nos. 6 to 13 while allowing appeal of the respondents. Learned counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances, the impugned order is fit to be quashed and petitioner is entitled for the relief prayed for. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS - STATE 8. Mr. Karan Shahdeo, AC to learned SC-II representing the State emphatically argues that Special Area Regulation whereby Section 71A was inserted in Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, came into existence with effect from 08.02.1969. The issue of time frame for admissibility of restoration petition under Section 71A has been clarified in D.O. Letter No. 604/LR dated 27.07.1974 of Land Reforms Commissioner of Bihar stipulating very explicitly that if any person has remained in possession for more than 12 years before 08.02.1969 then the period of limitation will not be extended from 12 years to 30 years. Learned counsel further argues that the first proviso to Section 46(4a)(a) clearly stipulates that an application for restoration of land shall not be entertained by the Deputy Commissioner unless such application is filed within a period of 12 years from the date of transfer of the holding or any portion thereof. In the instant case, the third generation descended of alleged transferor filed restoration petition after lapse of nearly 50 years. In view of Section 230 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and the first proviso to Section 46(4-A)(a) of the Act as well as under various ruling of this Court, the application of the petitioner for land restoration under Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act is not maintainable. The claim of the petitioner is not maintainable in light of the facts pertaining to this case and as such this writ petition is liable to be rejected. FINDINGS OF THE COURT 9. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties across the bar and after examination of documents brought on record, without going into merits of the case, I find that it is a fit case for reconsideration by the Commissioner. 10. FINDINGS OF THE COURT 9. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties across the bar and after examination of documents brought on record, without going into merits of the case, I find that it is a fit case for reconsideration by the Commissioner. 10. In the circumstances, order dated 21.04.2012, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla in SAR Appeal No. 41 of 2007, is hereby quashed and set aside and this matter is remanded to the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi (Respondent No. 2) who, after hearing the parties and considering facts and circumstances of the case, shall pass reasoned order without being prejudiced by the orders earlier passed by him. The issue of limitation is kept open before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi who will look into the matter and consider the same and pass orders on merits as well as on limitation. 11. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of accordingly.