JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. R.S.P. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner alongwith Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate. 2. Ms. Archana Kumari, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the State. 3. Nobody is appearing on behalf of the private respondent in spite of service of notice. 4. The records of the case reveal that on 30.10.2015, an order was passed that in spite of service of dasti summons, the Respondent No.5 failed to appear in the present proceeding. However, with a view to give one more chance, the matter was adjourned for four weeks. Respondent No.5 has not entered appearance by filing Vakalatnama. 5. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (a) For issuance of an appropriate Writ/order/direction and/or a writ in the nature of certiorari to set-aside/quash the order dated 31-07-2009 (ANNEXURE-4, Page No.32-34 to the writ petition) passed by learned Additional Collector, Ranchi (Respondent No.3) in S.A.R. Appeal No.- 108 R 15/08-09 whereby and whereunder the said Appellate Authority had set-aside the order dated 21-06-2008 passed by the learned Land Reform Deputy Collector, sadar Ranchi (Respondent No.4) in S.A.R. Case No. 06/05-06 by which the said learned Court had ordered the petitioner and another either to purchase the land equivalent to the land of Respondent No.5 and hand-over the same to him or to pay the price of the land of Respondent No.5 at the rate of Rupees 5903/- per decimal of land through demand draft as compensation otherwise the Respondent No.5 would be put in possession over the land in question by dispossessing the petitioner and another and also, to quash/set-aside the order dated 09-03-2010 passed in S.A.R.. Revision Case No. 86/2009 (ANNEXURE-5, Page-35-36) by the learned Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi (Respondent No.2) whereby and whereunder the said Revisional Authority has rejected the said S.A.R. Revision filed by the petitioner against the order dated 31-07-2009 and ordered to restore the land in question in favour of the Respondent No.5.” 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the private respondent had filed an application for restoration of the property involved in the present case in the year 2005 which was numbered as S.A.R. Case No. 06 of 2005-06 under Section 71-A of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the private respondent had filed an application for restoration of the property involved in the present case in the year 2005 which was numbered as S.A.R. Case No. 06 of 2005-06 under Section 71-A of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. He submitted that after hearing the parties, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector (L.R.D.C.) passed final order dated 21.06.2008 taking into consideration the materials including the sale deed, rent receipts and licenses relating to business and other documents and held that the present petitioner was in possession of the property of house and business over the property for more than 30 years and held that the application of restoration of land was barred by limitation. He submitted that in spite of holding that the application is barred by limitation, a sympathetic approach was taken by the SAR Officer directing the present petitioner to give equivalent land to the private respondent or to deposit an amount of Rs. 5903/- per decimal through demand draft. The learned counsel submitted that pursuant to the said order, the petitioner duly deposited an amount of Rs. 29,515/- as contained in Annexure-3. He further submitted that against the order passed in SAR Case, the private respondent filed appeal which was decided vide order dated 31.07.2009 (Annexure-4). The appeal was allowed on the ground that the land was transferred on the basis of Sada Patta as back as in the year 1968-70, but the private respondent had filed one Banda Purcha which reflected that the land did not have any construction over it and also recorded that some construction was done during the pendency of the case and ultimately vide order dated 31.07.2009, the appeal was allowed by holding that the order of Land Reforms Deputy Collector was against the provisions of Section 71-A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Appellate Authority did not consider the other materials on record on the basis of which the SAR Court had recorded that the petitioner was in possession of the property for more than 30 years. He submitted that the appellate order was perverse and consequently, the petitioner had filed revision which was numbered as SAR Revision No. 86 of 2009. He submitted that the appellate order was perverse and consequently, the petitioner had filed revision which was numbered as SAR Revision No. 86 of 2009. The learned counsel further submitted that the matter was listed on 22.02.2010 for hearing on the point of admission and the entire order- sheet shows that the matter was adjourned from time to time for hearing on the point of admission and lastly, it was fixed for hearing on the point of Admission on 09.03.2010. Vide order dated 22.02.2010 and on 09.03.2010, the impugned order was passed by the Revisional Authority without calling for the records. He submitted that the order-sheet itself indicates that there has been no order calling the records by the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority. The learned counsel submitted that otherwise also, the impugned order dated 09.03.2010 is a cryptic order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has furnished a copy of the revision application yesterday, a copy of which has also been served upon learned counsel for the respondents and submitted that several points were raised by the petitioner in the revisional application, but the points were not considered and the materials available in the records of SAR Officer has also not been considered and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is fit to be set aside and matter be remitted back to the Revisional Authority with a direction to call for the records and pass a speaking order in accordance with law considering the points which have been raised by the petitioner in the revision application. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, while opposing the prayer of the petitioner submitted that the claim of the petitioner based on Sada Patta is not at all tenable in the eyes of law. She also submitted that the required procedure for declaring the land as Chhaparbandi was not followed and no required permission of the Deputy Commissioner was taken and therefore, the impugned order passed by the revisional authority, although is a short order, but the same does not call for any interference by this court. He submitted that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned orders do not call for any interference. 8. He submitted that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned orders do not call for any interference. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the SAR Court had decided the case in favour of the petitioner by holding that the application for restoration was itself barred by limitation and various documents have been filed by the petitioner before the L.R.D.C. to substantiate his claim of possession of the property as apparent from the order passed by the L.R.D.C.. In spite of that the SAR Court had directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 5,903/- or to give equivalent land to the private respondent of the present case. It further appears that the petitioner had also deposited the amount before the Authority through demand draft dated 30.08.2008 amounting to Rs. 29,515. This Court further finds that the private respondent had filed appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority allowed the appeal against which the petitioner had filed revision before the Revisional authority which was numbered as SAR Revision No. 86/2009. From the perusal of the entire order-sheet which has been annexed alongwith the writ petition, it appears that the matter was posted from time to time on the point of admission and there is no order calling for the records of the SAR Court or the appellate Authority. It further appears that on 22.02.2010 the matter was adjourned to be posted on 09.03.2010 for hearing on the point of Admission. However, on 09.03.2010, the Revisional Authority passed an order rejecting the revision petition. From the perusal of the revision petition which has been filed by the petitioner yesterday, it appears that many points were raised by the petitioner including the point of limitation, but those points have not been considered by the revisional authority. It further appears that the Revisional Authority while passing the impugned order has not taken care to call for the records and passed order in the light of all the materials which were available before the L.R.D.C.. The order dated 09.03.2010 does not appear to be a speaking order in many aspects of the matter which the petitioner has raised in the revision application. 9. The order dated 09.03.2010 does not appear to be a speaking order in many aspects of the matter which the petitioner has raised in the revision application. 9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 09.03.2010 passed by the Revisional Authority in SAR Revision No. 86/2009 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is hereby set aside. 10. The matter is remitted to the Revisional Authority for fresh decision after taking into consideration all the materials which are available in the records of the SAR Court/Appellate Authority and decide the case by a reasoned order considering the points which have been raised by the petitioner in the revision application. The order is to be passed after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondents including the private respondent. It is to be noted here that in the present proceedings, the private respondent has not appeared in spite of service of notice. The petitioner shall appear before the learned Commissioner on 20.02.2023. Upon appearance of the petitioner, the Revisional Authority shall take appropriate steps for appearance of the private respondent and after granting an opportunity of hearing to the parties and shall pass a reasoned order as directed above within a period of eight months from 20.02.2023. The impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority has been set aside solely on the ground that the same is non-speaking on the various aspects of the matter including the point of limitation. 11. It is further made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of the case or otherwise the claim of the petitioner or the private respondent. It is open for the Commissioner (Revisional Authority) to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law basing its findings on the materials available on record. 12. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.