ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the common order dated 07.04.2012 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in S.A.R. Revision No. 55 of 2006 and S.A.R. Revision No. 62 of 2006, whereby the order dated 30.05.2006 passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi in S.A.R. Appeal No. 34 R-15 of 2003-04 has been modified by observing that since the land measuring an area of 2.24 acres settled through registered ‘Bandobastinama’ and the land measuring an area of 177 acres settled through ‘Sada Hukumnama’ (total 4.01 acres land) were validly acquired by the then landlord in the year 1938 by way of issuance of sale certificate and delivery of possession in his favour, the order of restoration not only for the land measuring an area of 2.24 acres, but also for the land measuring an area of 1.77 acres was liable to be set aside and accordingly, the order dated 07.01.2004 passed by the respondent no. 3 the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Khunti in S.A.R. Case No. 01/2003-04 regarding restoration of entire land of 4.01 acres has also been set aside. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land of Khata No. 28 appertaining to Plot Nos. 340, 341, 347 to 353 (nine plots in number), Mouza-Palsa, P.S. Karra, District-Khunti, measuring total area of 4.01 acres (hereinafter referred to as “the said land”) was recorded in the name of Budhuwa Munda and after his death, the same was inherited by his son Mulur Munda, who died leaving behind his only son namely, Satura Munda (the present petitioner). It is further submitted that prior to vesting of the said land in the State Government, neither the said ancestor of the petitioner had surrendered the same to the then landlord nor the said land was settled in favour of the ancestors/predecessors-in-interest of the private respondents and the said fact finds support from issuance of rent receipts by the revenue authority in favour of the petitioner. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner preferred land restoration case being S.A.R. Case No. 01/2003-04 under Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 before the respondent no. 3-the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Khunti as the private respondents were trying to illegally dispossess him from the said land. The respondent no. 3. It is further submitted that the petitioner preferred land restoration case being S.A.R. Case No. 01/2003-04 under Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 before the respondent no. 3-the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Khunti as the private respondents were trying to illegally dispossess him from the said land. The respondent no. 3 vide order dated 07.01.2004, directed to restore the said land in favour of the petitioner with a further direction to the respondent no. 4-the Circle Officer, Karra, Khunti to ensure delivery of possession of the said land to the petitioner. Pursuant to the order dated 07.01.2004, a proceeding of delivery of possession of the said land was initiated and the same was handed over to the petitioner. The private respondents preferred appeal before the Additional Collector, Ranchi which was registered as S.A.R. Appeal No. 34 R-15/2003-04, who vide order dated 30.05.2006 partially modified the order passed in S.A.R. Case No. 01/2003-04 and held that 2.24 acres of land was validly transferred in favour of the ancestors/predecessors-in-interest of the private respondents by the then landlord in the year 1946 by way of registered settlement. Accordingly, the order of restoration with respect to 2.24 acres of land was set aside, however, the rest land measuring an area of 1.77 acres being settled through ‘Sada Hukumnama’ by the then landlord in the year 1945 was directed to be restored in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved with the said order, both the petitioner and the private respondents filed S.A.R. Revision No. 55 of 2006 and S.A.R. Revision No. 62 of 2006 respectively before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, who vide impugned order dated 07.04.2022, quashed the order of restoration pertaining to entire land of 4.01 acres passed by the respondent no. 3 and the order passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi was modified to the extent that order of restoration for the land measuring an area of 1.77 acres was also liable to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the document filed before the Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi was not brought on record by the private respondents before the S.A.R. Court and the authenticity of the said document was also not properly scrutinized by the revisional court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the document filed before the Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi was not brought on record by the private respondents before the S.A.R. Court and the authenticity of the said document was also not properly scrutinized by the revisional court. The ancestor of the petitioner namely, Budhuwa Munda had never surrendered the said land to the then landlord and thus, there was no question of settlement of the same in favour of the private respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and as such, no interference of this Court is required. The petitioner was out of possession of the said land for more than 65 years and thus, the land restoration case itself was barred by limitation. It is a well settled principle of law that the law assists only those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. Since the petitioner/his ancestors did not challenge dispossession for more than 65 years, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order of the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division Ranchi, whereby his claim for restoration of the said land has been rejected. 7. I have perused the impugned order dated 07.04.2022, wherein it has been observed that Case No. 512/1937-38 was instituted by the then landlord namely, Mohan Ram Pathak against the recorded tenant namely, Budhuwa Munda as he failed to deposit the rent and thereafter, a sale certificate was issued in favour of the said landlord delivering possession of the same in his favour in the year 1938 itself. Subsequently, out of the said land, 1.77 acres land was transferred by way of Sada Hukumnama dated 12.02.1945 and rest 2.24 acres land was transferred on 17.10.1946 by way of registered settlement in favour of the ancestors of the private respondents. It has further been held that the land restoration case was filed in the year 2003 i.e. after 65 years of dispossession, which was barred by limitation. 8. It has further been held that the land restoration case was filed in the year 2003 i.e. after 65 years of dispossession, which was barred by limitation. 8. To appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, it would be relevant to refer Section 71-A of the Act, 1908 which reads as under: “71-A. Power to restore possession to members 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 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 suits by fraud and collusion), 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 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, resettle it with another Raiyat belonging to Scheduled Tribes according to the village custom for the disposal of an abandoned holding.......” 9. The words “at any time” as has been mentioned in Section 71-A of the Act, 1908 has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jai Mangal Oraon vs. Smt. Mira Nayak and Others, (2000) 5 SCC 141 and it has been held as under: 16. The submission that, in any event the contesting respondents cannot be allowed to hold the land they being non-tribals and the Deputy Commissioner is obliged to allot the same to some other tribal only does not merit our acceptance. Apart from the grounds on which we have rejected the claim of the appellant, we find that the High Court left open the question about the disputed character of the lands and the nature of interest surrendered which if had been properly considered and decided was likely to have an impact on the question of the very applicability of the statutory provisions to the case on hand. Merely because Section 71-A commences with the words “If at any time......” it cannot be taken to mean that those powers could be exercised without any point of time-limit, as in this case after nearly about forty years unmindful of the rights of the parties acquired in the meantime under the ordinary law and the law of limitation. We consider it, therefore, inappropriate to countenance any such contentions in these proceedings. 10. Further, in the case of Situ Sahu and Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2004) 8 SCC 340 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: 11. We are, therefore, of the view that the use of the words “at any time” in Section 71-A is evidence of the legislative intent to give sufficient flexibility to the Deputy Commissioner to implement the socio-economic policy of the Act viz. to prevent inroads upon the rights of the ignorant, illiterate and backward citizens. Thus, where the Deputy Commissioner chooses to exercise his power under Section 71-A it would be futile to contend that the period of limitation under the Limitation Act has expired. The period of limitation under the Limitation Act is intended to bar suits brought in civil courts where the party himself chooses to exercise his right of seeking restoration of immovable property. But, where, for socio-economic reasons, the party may not even be aware of his own rights, the legislature has stepped in by making an officer of the State responsible for doing social justice by clothing him with sufficient power. However, even such power cannot be exercised after an unreasonably long time during which third-party interests might have come into effect. Thus, the test is not whether the period of limitation prescribed in the Act of 1963 had expired, but whether the power under Section 71-A was sought to be exercised after unreasonable delay. 11. Thus, it is well settled that though there is no period of limitation fixed for exercise of power under Section 71-A of the Act, 1908 by the Deputy Commissioner, yet such power cannot be exercised after an unreasonably long period during which the third party interests might have come into effect. 12. 11. Thus, it is well settled that though there is no period of limitation fixed for exercise of power under Section 71-A of the Act, 1908 by the Deputy Commissioner, yet such power cannot be exercised after an unreasonably long period during which the third party interests might have come into effect. 12. In the present case, on consideration of factual aspect involved in the matter including the order passed in Case No. 512/1937-38, the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi has found that Budhuwa Munda-ancestor/predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was dispossessed from the entire 4.01 acres of land in the year 1938 itself, whereas S.A.R. Case was filed in the year 2003 i.e. after 65 years of dispossession. Considering the ratio laid down in the case of “Situ Sahu” (supra), the said period cannot be said to be reasonable for exercising power under Section 71-A of the Act, 1908. Even if it is assumed that the transfer of 1.77 acres of land made through Sada Hukumnama was not in accordance with law and was doubted by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Khunti, then also the said fact would not have made any difference as Budhuwa Munda-ancestor/predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was dispossessed from the entire land of 4.01 acres in the year 1938 itself by reasons of the order passed in Case No. 512/1937-38. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in S.A.R. Revision Case No. 55 of 2006 and S.A.R. Revision Case No. 62 of 2006. 14. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.