JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 06.04.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.135 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the prayer for quashing of the order dated 11.07.1996 passed by the Special Officer Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi in S.A.R. Case No.243 of 1990-91 whereby restoration of an area of 44 Katthas of land appertaining to part of R.S. Plot No. 191, under Khata No. 34 of Village Hehal, P.S. No. 203 Ranchi, Police Station Sukhdeonagar, District Ranchi has been ordered to be restored to the private respondents 4 to 8, as also quashing of order dated 12.09.1997 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in S.A.R. Appeal No. 47 R 15/1996-97/DCTR 314 R 15 of 1996- 97 and order dated 20.12.2010 passed by the respondent no. 1 in Ranchi Revenue Revision No. 323 of 1997, has been rejected while dismissing the writ petition. 2. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :- The property involved in this case was originally recorded in the name of Most. Sukro wife of late Mangru Oraon being the sole family successor of the deceased Mangru Oraon. The said recorded tenant passed away issueless and after her death the said property remained uncultivated/abandoned and as such under the provisions of section 23 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 right of raiyati interest devolved upon the landlord of the village. Accordingly, the landlord resumed the said property and entered into possession and a settlement was made by Sada Document with one Permeshwar Misir on 23.12.1942. 3. Permeshwar Misir remained in possession of that property and paid land revenue to the landlord and this property was also mentioned in the return filed by the landlord on vesting of the estate as per the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. 4. Permeshwar Misir had made substantial construction on the land in the year 1946-47 and he executed an agreement in favour of the original writ petitioner for transfer of an area of 44 Kattas of land on 04.01.1966 and put the original writ petitioner in possession of the said land as per the provision of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 5. 5. The original writ petitioner by virtue of said agreement and in exercise of his possession has established an industrial unit on the said property. The value of the constructed property according to the petitioners is more than Rs. One Crore. Thereafter, the property was transferred to the original writ petitioner by way of two registered sale deeds of the year 1984 and 1988 by the said Permeshwar Misir. 6. An S.A.R. Case No. 243 of 1991 was initiated by the Special Officer S.A.R., Ranchi under section 71A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 on an application filed by the private respondents. According to the petitioners the private respondents are no way related to the recorded tenant. 7. The original writ petitioner filed number of documents before the Special Officer, Ranchi which have been mentioned in the order passed by the S.A.R. Officer, Ranchi which included the documents relating to settlement in favour of the Permeshwar Misir by the Zamindar and rent receipt issued by the Zamindar. The agreement was also filed before the said authority. However, the Special Officer, Ranchi rejected the show-cause filed by the original writ petitioner and allowed the application under the provision of Section 71 A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 for restoration of the said land to the private respondents herein. 8. Against the order of restoration of land the original writ petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi being S.A.R. Appeal No. 47 R 15/1996-97/DCTR 314 R 15 of 1996- 97 which was rejected vide order dated 12.09.1997 and subsequently the revision petition was filed before the revisional authority which was also dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2010. 9. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders, a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.135 of 2011 has been filed on the ground that the documents which were relied upon by the original writ petitioner were not properly considered and appreciated by the authorities. 10. The further ground has been taken that the private respondents herein were dispossessed as back as in the year 1942 and accordingly, petition for restoration of land filed by them before the S.A.R. Court was itself time barred. 11. 10. The further ground has been taken that the private respondents herein were dispossessed as back as in the year 1942 and accordingly, petition for restoration of land filed by them before the S.A.R. Court was itself time barred. 11. The ground has also been taken before the learned Single Judge that property involved in this case is situated in the municipal area of Ranchi and the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 is applicable in the Municipal Area of Ranchi since 1982 and since the private respondents were dispossessed from the property as back as in the year 1942, therefore, there was no question of applicability of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 in the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, has dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 06.04.2018 which has been challenged in this intra-court appeal. 13. It appears from the factual aspect that the property involved in this case was originally recorded in the name of Most. Sukro wife of late Mangru Oraon being the sole family successor of the deceased Mangru Oraon. The said recorded tenant passed away issueless and after her death the said property remained uncultivated/abandoned and as such under the provisions of section 23 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 right of raiyati interest devolved upon the landlord of the village. Accordingly, the landlord resumed the said property and entered into possession and a settlement was made by Sada Document with one Permeshwar Misir on 23.12.1942. 14. Permeshwar Misir remained in possession of that property and paid land revenue to the landlord. He had made substantial construction on the land in the year 1946-47 and he executed an agreement in favour of the original writ petitioner for transfer of an area of 44 Kattas of land on 04.01.1966 and put the original writ petitioner in possession of the said land. The original writ petitioner by virtue of said agreement has established an industrial unit on the said property. Thereafter, the property was transferred to the original writ petitioner by way of two registered sale deeds of the year 1984 and 1988 by the said Permeshwar Misir. 15. An S.A.R. Case No. 243 of 1991 was initiated by the Special Officer S.A.R., Ranchi under section 71A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 on an application filed by the private respondents. 16. 15. An S.A.R. Case No. 243 of 1991 was initiated by the Special Officer S.A.R., Ranchi under section 71A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 on an application filed by the private respondents. 16. According to the petitioners the private respondents are no way related to the recorded tenant. The Special Officer, Ranchi allowed the application under the provision of Section 71 A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 for restoration of the said land to the private respondents herein. 17. Against the order of restoration of land the original writ petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi being S.A.R. Appeal No. 47 R 15/1996-97/DCTR 314 R 15 of 1996- 97 which was rejected vide order dated 12.09.1997 and subsequently the revision petition was filed before the revisional authority which was also dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2010. 18. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid orders, a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.135 of 2011 has been filed which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 06.04.2018 which has been challenged in this intra-court appeal. 19. Mr. Suresh Nand Tiwary, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has taken the following grounds in assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge :- (i) The said recorded tenant passed away issue less and after her death the said property remained uncultivated/abandoned and as such under the provisions of section 23 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 right of raiyati interest devolved upon the land lord of the village. (ii) Accordingly, the land lord resumed the said property and entered into possession and a settlement was made by Sada Document with one Permeshwar Misir on 23.12.1942. (iii) The private respondents herein were dispossessed as back as in the year 1942 and accordingly, petition for restoration of land filed by them before the S.A.R. Court was itself time barred. (iv) The property involved in this case is situated in the municipal area of Ranchi and the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 is applicable in the Municipal Area of Ranchi since 1982. As the private respondents were dispossessed from the property as back as in the year 1942, therefore, there was no question of applicability of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 in the facts and circumstances of the case. As the private respondents were dispossessed from the property as back as in the year 1942, therefore, there was no question of applicability of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 in the facts and circumstances of the case. (v) It is a case which was required to be dealt with by taking into consideration the provision of Section 23 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, wherein the Raiyat has died intestate and, hence, the occupancy right of the Raiyat on account of the death intestate has been descended and vested in the landlord. 20. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has taken following grounds :- (i) By referring the order dated 11.07.1996 passed by the S.A.R. Officer, counsel for the respondents submits that the documents which have been filed by the petitioners are one Sada settlement of land with Permeshwar Misir by the then Zamindar and one rent receipt through the then Zamindar including one documents named as lease agreement (sada). However, after considering all these documents the S.A.R. Officer recorded specific findings that the documents which have been filed by the petitioner were not genuine and the petitioner could not prove those documents and, further, that the respondents herein are the descendants of the recorded Raiyat and also recorded. (ii) After appreciating the facts and circumstances of this case, the appellate authority has recorded specific findings that the Most. Sukro was the predecessor of the private respondent and there has been no proof whatsoever that the land in question was ever resumed by the ex-intermediary and accordingly the case of the original writ petitioner was totally disbelieved even by the appellate authority. (iii) Before the revisional authority there is a specific finding recorded that no documents have been filed by the petitioner relating to the period prior to 1980 and accordingly the authority held that there was no question of application of restoration of land being time barred. (iv) The original writ petitioner has lost before all the three authorities and there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned orders calling for any interference in writ jurisdiction. (iv) The original writ petitioner has lost before all the three authorities and there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned orders calling for any interference in writ jurisdiction. (v) The petitioners have taken new plea in the writ petition and further a new case has been tried to be made out by filing a rejoinder and introducing various plea and documents which were never produced or raised before the authorities below and such plea or documents cannot be appreciated for the first time in the writ court after the original petitioner has lost before the three authorities. (vi) So far as the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the provision as contained under Section 23 of the Act, 1908 has not been complied with, it is not fit to be accepted, reason being that the same has been dealt with by the Special Officer, the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority wherein the finding has been recorded that the procedure which is required to be followed before vesting the land into the landlord on account of the death of the Raiyat intestate is that the Deputy Commissioner is required to issue notice. But, it is evident from the fact that no notice has been issued as ever. (vii) The writ petitioner is taking the ground on its own that the Raiyat had died intestate which is having no substance since the private respondents, i.e., Respondent Nos. 4 to 6, are the legal heirs of the Raiyat who have filed the restoration application under Section 71A of the Act, 1908. 21. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 22. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is now proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the impugned order based upon the appreciation of the argument advanced on behalf of the parties and on appreciation of relevant documents as also the finding recorded by the revenue authorities and the learned Single Judge. 23. Before delving upon the aforesaid issue, since the issue pertains to the tenancy law applicable in the State of Jharkhand which is governed by Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and as such it requires to refer herein the very object and intent of the Act, 1908. 24. 23. Before delving upon the aforesaid issue, since the issue pertains to the tenancy law applicable in the State of Jharkhand which is governed by Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 and as such it requires to refer herein the very object and intent of the Act, 1908. 24. The Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, is a land rights legislation that was created to protect the land rights of the tribal population of the Jharkhand instituted by the British. Major feature of the C.N.T. Act is that it prohibits the transfer of land to non-tribals to ensure community ownership. The areas of North Chotanagpur, South Chotanagpur and Palamau Division are included in the jurisdiction of C.N.T. Act. The Act is listed in the 9th Schedule of the Constitution. 25. The sale and purchase of the tribal land are regulated by the provision of Section 46 proviso (a) (b) and 49 of the C.N.T. Act. Proviso (a) of Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act allows the transfer of tribal land to another tribal member who is a resident within the area of the police station of the situated holding can be done with the permission of the Deputy Commissioner. Proviso (b) of Section 46 of the C.N.T. Act allows S.Cs and Backward Classes to transfer their land to community member within the district area with the permission of the Deputy Commissioner. A transfer of land from tribal to non-tribal is allowed under Section 49 only for industries or any other purposes. Permission of such land transfer is given by the revenue department. 26. It is evident that Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, has been enacted to protect the interest of the Raiyats living in the Schedule/Non-schedule area. The foremost consideration under the statutory command is that the land which belongs to the Raiyat on the basis of the record of right has been considered to be their source of livelihood, hence an embargo has been put in transfer of the said land in favour of the Non-Tribal, as would be evident from Section 46 along with other provisions contained therein. Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 is being quoted hereunder as :- “46. Restrictions on transfer of their right by Raiyat. Section 46 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 is being quoted hereunder as :- “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: Provided that a Raiyat may enter into a 'bhugut bundha' mortgage of his holding or any portion thereof for any period not exceeding seven years or if the mortgagee be a society registered or deemed to be registered under the 'Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 (B&O Act VI of 1935) for any period not exceeding fifteen years: Provided further that, - (a) an occupancy-Raiyat, who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes may transfer with the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner his right in his holding or a portion of his holding by sale, exchange, gift or will to another person, who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes and, who is a resident within the local limits of the area of the police station within which the holding is situate; (b) an occupancy-Raiyat, who is a member of the Scheduled Castes or Backward Classes may transfer with the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner his right in his holding or a portion of his holding by sale, exchange, gift, will or lease to another person, who is a member of the Scheduled Castes or, as the case may be, Backward Classes and who is a resident within the local limits of the district within which the holding is situate; (c) any occupancy-Raiyat may, transfer his right in his holding or any portion thereof to a society or bank registered or deemed to be registered under the 'Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 (Bihar and Orissa Act VI of 1935), or to the State Bank of India or a bank specified in column 2 of the First Schedule to the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970) or to a company or a corporation owned by, or in which less than fifty-one per cent of the share capital is held by the State Government or the Central Government or partly by the State Government, and partly by the Central Government, and which has been set up with a view to provide agricultural credit to cultivators; and (d) any occupancy-Raiyat, who is not a member of the Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes or Backward classes, may, transfer his right in his holding or any portion thereof by sale, exchange, gift, will, mortgage or otherwise to any other person. (2) A transfer by a Raiyat of his right in his holding or any portion thereof under subsection (1) shall be binding on the landlords. (3) No transfer of contravention of sub-section (1), shall be registered or shall be in any way recognised as valid by any Court, whatever in exercise, of civil, criminal or revenue jurisdiction. [(3-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Deputy Commissioner shall be a necessary party in all suits of a civil nature relating to any holding or portion thereof in which one of the parties to the suits is a member of the Scheduled Tribes and the other party is not a member of the Scheduled Tribes. (4) At any time within three years after the expiration of the period or which a Raiyat has under clause (a) of sub-section (1) transferred his right in his holding or any portion thereof, the Deputy Commissioner shall on the application of the Raiyat put the Raiyat into possession of such holding or portion in the prescribed manner. (4-A) (a) The Deputy Commissioner may, of his own motion or on an application filed before him by an occupancy-Raiyat, who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes, for annulling the transfer on the ground that the transfer was made in contravention of clause (a) of the second proviso to sub-section (1), hold an inquiry in the prescribed manner to determine if the transfer has been made in contravention of clause (a) of the second proviso to sub-section (1): Provided that no such application be entertained by the Deputy Commissioner unless it is filed by the occupancy-tenant within a period of twelve years from the date of transfer of his holding or any portion thereof: Provided further that before passing any order under clause (b) or clause (c) of this subsection, the Deputy Commissioner shall give the parties concerned a reasonable opportunity to be heard in the matter. (b) If after holding the inquiry referred to in clause (a) of this sub-section, the Deputy Commissioner finds that there was no contravention of clause (a) of the second proviso to sub-section (1) in making such transfer, he shall reject the application and may award such costs to the transferee to be paid by the transferor as he may, in the circumstances of the case, deem fit. (c) If after holding the inquiry referred to in clause (a) of this sub-section, the Deputy Commissioner finds that such transfer was made in contravention of clause (a) of the second proviso to sub-section (1), he shall annul the transfer and eject the transferee from such holding or portion thereof, as the case may be and put the transferor in possession thereof: Provided that if the transferee has constructed any building or structure, such holding or portion thereof, the Deputy Commissioner shall, if the transferor is not willing to pay the value of the same, order the transferee to remove the same within a period of six months from the date of the order, or within such extended time not exceeding two years from the date of the order as the Deputy Commissioner may allow failing which the Deputy Commissioner may get such building or structure removed: Provided further that where the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that the transferee has constructed a substantial structure or building on such holding or portion thereof before the commencement of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1969 (President's Act 4 of 1969) he may, notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, validate such a transfer made in contravention of clause (a) of the second proviso to sub-section (1), if the transferee either makes available to the transferor an alternative holding or portion of a holding, as the case may be, of the equivalent value, in the vicinity or pays adequate compensation to be determined by the Deputy Commissioner for rehabilitation of the transferor Explanation. - In this Section "substantial structure or building" means the structure or building of the value exceeding five thousand rupees on the date of holding inquiry, but it does not include such structure or building of any value the materials of which cannot be removed without incurring substantial depreciation in its value. (5) Nothing in this Section shall affect the validity of any transfer (of otherwise invalid) of a Raiyats right in his holding or any portion thereof made bona fide before the first day of January 1908 in the Chota Nagpur Division except the district of 'Manbhum', or before the first day of Januaury 1909, in the district of 'Manbhum'. (5) Nothing in this Section shall affect the validity of any transfer (of otherwise invalid) of a Raiyats right in his holding or any portion thereof made bona fide before the first day of January 1908 in the Chota Nagpur Division except the district of 'Manbhum', or before the first day of Januaury 1909, in the district of 'Manbhum'. (6) In this Section [and in Section 47],- (a) "Scheduled Casted" means such castes, races or tribes as are specified in Part II of the Scheduled to the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950; (b) "Scheduled Tribes" means such tribes or tribal communities or parts of or groups within such tribes or tribal communities as are specified in Part II of the Scheduled to the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950; and (c) "Backward classed" means such classes of citizens as may be declared by the State Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to be socially and educationally backward.” 27. However, the provision under Section 46(4) is for Non-schedule area, hence limitation is to be made applicable to file application for restoration within 12 years as under Section 46(5) of the Act, 1908. But, herein, the case is not of Section 46(4) since the land falls within the jurisdiction of the Schedule area and hence, the provision of Section 46 will be applicable which mandates to have permission before transfer of land. 28. The other provisions are there as under Section, 23, 72 and 73 of the Act, 1908. 29. Section 23 deals with a situation where the Raiyat has died intestate then what is to be done with respect to the land which was recorded in his name. For ready reference, Section 23 of the Act, 1908 is quoted hereunder as :- “23. Devolution of occupancy right on death - If a Raiyat dies intestate in respect of a right of occupancy, it shall, subject to any local custom to the contrary, descend in the same manner as other immovable property : Provided that in any case in which, under the law of inheritance to which the Raiyat is subject, his other property goes to the Government, his right of occupancy shall be extinguished.” 30. The provision contains that if a Raiyat dies intestate in respect of a right of occupancy, it shall, subject to any local custom to the contrary, descend in the same manner as other immovable property; provided that in any case in which, under the law of inheritance to which the Raiyat is subject, his other property goes to the Government, his right of occupancy shall be extinguished. 31. Section 72 deals with a situation in a case when the Raiyat surrenders the land in favour of the ex-landlord and Section 73 deals with a situation if the Raiyat abandons the said land. But the process of vesting upon the landlord either under Section 72 or Section 73 requires surrender procedure to be followed, i.e., ex-landlord is to apprise the Deputy Commissioner with respect to surrender or abandonment, as the case may be. 32. On this, the Deputy Commissioner will issue notice upon the concerned party and thereafter, depending upon the objection, if any, the decision will be taken for vesting upon the ex-landlord, for ready reference, Section 72 and 73 are being quoted hereunder as :- “72. Surrender of land by Raiyat – (1) A Raiyat not bound by a lease or other agreement for a fixed period may, at the end of any agricultural year surrender his holding with the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner in writing. (2) But, notwithstanding the surrender, the Raiyat shall be liable to indemnify the landlord against any loss of the rent of the holding for the agricultural year next following the date of the surrender, unless he gives to his landlord, at least four months before he surrenders, notice of his intention to surrender. (3) The Raiyat may, if he thinks fit, cause the notice to be served through the Court of the Deputy Commissioner within whose jurisdiction the holding or any portion of it is situate. (4) When a Raiyat has surrendered his holding the landlord may enter on the holding and either let it to another tenant or to take it into cultivation himself. (5) Nothing in this Section shall affect any arrangement by which a Raiyat and his landlord may arrange for a surrender of the whole or a part of the holding with the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner in writing. 73. (5) Nothing in this Section shall affect any arrangement by which a Raiyat and his landlord may arrange for a surrender of the whole or a part of the holding with the previous sanction of the Deputy Commissioner in writing. 73. Abandonment of land by Raiyat – (1) If a Raiyat voluntarily abandons the land held or cultivated by him, without notice to the landlord and ceases either himself or through any other person to cultivate the land and to pay his rent as it falls due, the landlord may at any time after the expiration of the agricultural year in which the Raiyat so abandons and ceases to cultivate, enter on the holding and let it to another tenant or take into cultivation himself. (2) Before a landlord enters under this Section, he shall send a notice to the Deputy Commissioner in the prescribed manner, stating that he has treated the holding as abandoned and is about to enter on it accordingly; and the Deputy Commissioner shall cause a notice of the fact to be published in the prescribed manner and if an objection is preferred to him within one month of the date of publication of the notice shall make a summary inquiry and shall decide whether the landlord is entitled under sub-section (1) to enter on the holding. The landlord shall not enter on the holding unless and until such objection has been decided in his favour, or if no objection is preferred, until the expiration of one month from the date of publication of the notice. (3) When a landlord enters under this Section, the Raiyat shall be entitled to apply to the Deputy Commissioner for the recovery of possession of the land at any time not later than the expiration of three years in the case of an occupancy-Raiyat or in the case of a non-occupancy Raiyat one year, from the date of the publication of the notice; and thereupon, the Deputy Commissioner may on being satisfied that the Raiyat did not voluntarily abandon his holding, restore him to possession in the prescribed manner on such terms (if any) with respect to compensation to person injured and payment of arrears of rent as to the Deputy Commissioner may seem just.” 33. The reason for referring these provisions are that in a case of surrender or abandonment, it is not that merely because the Raiyat will surrender or abandon the land, the same will automatically vest upon the ex-landlord but the same is only to be vested upon the ex-landlord if the same will be applied to the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, after issuance of notice upon the Raiyat and the local people, will take decision subject to objection if any made. 34. Otherwise, if the land has been vested on abandonment or surrender and transferred in favour of the third party, the same will be in the teeth of Section 46(1) of the Act, 1908 which mandates that before transfer of the land, the necessary permission of the Deputy Commissioner is required if the land situates within the same police station. 35. Section 23 deals with the devolution of the land in a case where the Raiyat dies intestate. However, under Section 23 no procedure has been laid down as to how the land will be vested upon the ex-landlord, as has been stipulated either under Section 72 or Section 73 of the Act, 1908 wherein it has been mandated that the Deputy Commissioner is required to take decision. 36. But the question which requires consideration is that even if there is reference of any procedure to be followed in a case of vesting the land if the Raiyat died intestate, then what would be the procedure and whether it will be vested upon the ex-landlord immediately after death intestate. 37. We are of the view taking into consideration the object and intent of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 wherein the primary object is to safeguard the interest of the tribal people living either in the Schedule or Non-schedule area of the Chota Nagpur region. 38. The Deputy Commissioner, for the aforesaid reason, has been made necessary party so that the Deputy Commissioner be able to safeguard the interest of the Raiyat for hearing of victim or other party to the proceeding is on the ground that the Raiyat living in the Schedule or Non-schedule area of Chota Nagpur Region has been considered to be not legally equipped being resident of the tribal area. 39. 39. Section 23 of the Act, 1908 although delve upon the issue that on the death of the Raiyat intestate the land will descend in the same manner as other immoveable property subject to the condition that in any case in which the law of inheritance to which the Raiyat is subject, his other property goes to the Government, his right of occupancy shall be extinguished. 40. At the time of enactment of the Chota Nagpur Act, 1908 there was no specific provision of restoration and considering the aforesaid issue, the Schedule Area Regulation Act, 1969 has been enacted which also incorporates the provision under Section 71A whereby and whereunder it has been provided by vesting power upon the Deputy Commissioner that if at any time it comes to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that transfer of land belonging to a Raiyat, 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, he may, after giving reasonable opportunity to the transferee 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. For ready reference, Section 71A is being quoted hereunder as :- “71A. Power to restore possession to member of the Scheduled Tribes over land unlawfully transferred. For ready reference, Section 71A is being quoted hereunder as :- “71A. 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-Kattidaror 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 transferee, 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.” 41. The primary object of Section 71A is that in case of violation of the process of Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, if the land has been transferred, the same is to be restored in favour of the Raiyat subject to the condition that the application must be filed within the reasonable period as has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Situ Sahu & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2004 (4) JCR SC 211 wherein it has been laid down that under section 71A of the C.N.T. Act, it has been stipulated that an application for restoration of the land can be dealt with, if filed within reasonable time. 42. The ground has been taken that in view of the provision of Section 23 of the Act, 1908, the land since has vested on the ex-landlord, hence it became absolute title holder, thereafter, it was transferred in favour of the Permeshwar Misir. 43. It is evident from the record that no process before vesting and assuming the title over the land in question has been followed, rather, the case of the appellant is that in view of the provision of Section 23 of the Act, 1908, the land has been vested and hence he became the title holder. 43. It is evident from the record that no process before vesting and assuming the title over the land in question has been followed, rather, the case of the appellant is that in view of the provision of Section 23 of the Act, 1908, the land has been vested and hence he became the title holder. 44. But, the question is that if the very object of the Act is to protect the interest of the Raiyat living in Schedule/Non-schedule area and the restriction has been put under Section 46 or Section 72 or Section 73 of the Act, 1908, then accepting the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that since the Raiyat has died intestate, therefore, the land will ipso facto vests upon the ex-landlord cannot be accepted, reason being that if in such situation land will be said to be vested in ex-landlord then the very object of the Act, 1908 will be frustrated for the reason that there might be a situation that the Raiyat has died intestate but there may be legal heirs in the family hence before vesting, in view of the provision of Section 23, the requirement will be to bring the said fact into the notice of the Deputy Commissioner so that the due process be issued before taking decision of vesting upon the ex-landlord in case of death of the Raiyat intestate. 45. The provision of Section 23 of the Act, 1908 only provides that if a Raiyat dies intestate in respect of a right of occupancy, it shall, subject to any local custom to the contrary, descend in the same manner as other immovable property; provided that in any case in which, under the law of inheritance to which the Raiyat is subject, his other property goes to the Government, his right of occupancy shall be extinguished. 46. The aforesaid provision thus provides a case where there is none in the family of the Raiyat and in that circumstances the land will go to the State Government. 47. Section 23 indicates that the legislature contemplated that a Raiyat possessing a right of occupancy might have died as a testate or intestate in respect of that right. 46. The aforesaid provision thus provides a case where there is none in the family of the Raiyat and in that circumstances the land will go to the State Government. 47. Section 23 indicates that the legislature contemplated that a Raiyat possessing a right of occupancy might have died as a testate or intestate in respect of that right. It actually implies that the right is not only property but also immoveable property and even suggests that the ordinary law prevails under which the owner is entitled to dispose of it by will, subject perhaps to any local custom. 48. It, therefore, suggests that what would be the situation if the occupancy Raiyat dies intestate. As per the ordinary law, the owner will be entitled to dispose it of by will subject perhaps to any local custom. 49. Herein, the argument has been advanced regarding the applicability of Section 23 of the Act, 1908 on the ground that the occupancy Raiyat had died intestate and hence, the land was vested in the landlord. 50. But, if Section 23 will be seen, it does not say that in case of death of occupancy Raiyat intestate, land ipso facto will be vested upon the landlord, rather, the ordinary law prevails under which the owner is entitled to dispose of the property/immoveable property. 51. Hence, in view of the facts of the case, it is not a case where Section 23 of the Act, 1908 can be said to be applicable. 52. Here, in the given facts of the case, the private respondents are claiming to be the original Raiyats and that was all along the case. Show cause was asked and was responded by the appellant but in proof thereof no document has been produced before the original authority save and except the ground has been taken challenging the locus. 53. The Special Officer, S.A.R. while dealing with the said argument has come out with the finding that there is no finding by the competent authority, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner, and hence discarded the said ground. 54. 53. The Special Officer, S.A.R. while dealing with the said argument has come out with the finding that there is no finding by the competent authority, i.e., the Deputy Commissioner, and hence discarded the said ground. 54. As we have observed hereinabove, based upon the various provisions of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 along with the object and intent, the said finding of the Special Officer, S.A.R. about the absence of the decision of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be said to suffer from an error so as to achieve the object and intent of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. 55. The other grounds have been dealt with by the revenue authorities, i.e., the ground of limitation which has been found to be within time having been affirmed by the appellate authority, revisional authority and the learned Single Judge. 56. However, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the land was settled in the year 1942 as such, beyond the period of limitation but no document has been brought on record save and except the deed of transfer executed in the year 1982. Therefore, the revenue authorities have taken into consideration the date of transfer to be the date of dispossession by accepting the deed of transfer as an evidence. 57. The restoration application has been filed within 30 years by considering the transfer from the date of deed of registration. 58. Accordingly, we are of the view that the aforesaid finding regarding limitation cannot be said to suffer from an error. 59. This Court, having discussed the factual aspect and legal position and coming back to the order passed by the learned Single Judge, has found that the learned Single Judge has considered each and every issues involved in the instant case, which according to the considered view of this Court, is based upon the law applicable. 60. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the view that order passed by the learned Single Judge requires no interference. 61. Accordingly, the instant appeal lacks merit and accordingly dismissed. 62. Consequently, the pending interlocutory applications, also stand dismissed.