JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.09.2012 passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi-respondent no.3 in SAR Appeal Case No.55 R 15/2008-09, whereby the order dated 28.06.2008 (wrongly typed as 26.06.2008) passed by the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi- respondent no.4 in SAR Case No.40/2007-08 was set aside. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 06.09.2021 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi- respondent no.2 in SAR Revision No.130/2021, whereby the order dated 12.09.2012 passed by the respondent no.3 has been confirmed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the land appertaining to Khata No. 62, plot no. 1608, measuring an area of 2.30 acres, village Husir, is recorded in the name of Juthan Oraon. The petitioner filed SAR Case No.40 of 2007-08 against Shibnath Lohar (father of respondent nos.5 and 6), Chhotan Lohar (father of respondent no.7 and husband of the respondent no.8) and others for restoration of several plots of Khata no.62, measuring total area of 4.71 acres. The respondent No.4 vide order dated 28.6.2008 restored the land in question in favour of the petitioner, directing the Circle Officer, Kanke, Ranchi to ensure handing over the possession of the land in his favour. Shivnath Lohar and Chhotan Lohar filed an appeal being SAR Appeal Case No.55 R 15 of 2008-09 before the respondent no.3, challenging the order of restoration of the land to the extent of an area measuring 1.15 acres, appertaining to Khata no.62, plot no.1608, which was allowed vide order dated 12.09.2012, setting aside the order dated 28.6.2008 passed by the respondent no.4 with respect to the aforesaid land. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a revision before the respondent No.2 being SAR Revision No.130/2012, which was rejected vide order dated 6.9.2021. 3. It is further submitted that in the said appeal, the private respondents for the first time produced a copy of the permission granted under Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act,1908 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi vide order dated 22.10.1964 passed in Misc. Case no.112 R. 8 II of 1963-64. 3. It is further submitted that in the said appeal, the private respondents for the first time produced a copy of the permission granted under Section 46 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act,1908 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi vide order dated 22.10.1964 passed in Misc. Case no.112 R. 8 II of 1963-64. It appears from the order sheets of the said case that one Sibua Oraon had applied before the Rent Suit Deputy Collector, Ranchi for grant of permission to sell his land appertaining to plot no.168, Khata no.62, measuring an area of 1.15 acres of village Husir to Shibnath Lohar and Chotan Lohar showing their caste “Lohar” as "Adivasi" of the same village, which was incorrect, as the caste "Lohar" belongs to backward class category, whereas the caste "Lohra" belongs to schedule tribe category and as such, it appears that by giving wrong description of caste, the application for permission was made, which was absolutely illegal and consequently, the permission granted was itself illegal. The respondent authorities have failed to take into consideration that the private respondents are "Lohar" by caste which belongs to backward class category. As such, the permission granted as well as sale deed dated 22.10.1965 executed in favour of the ancestors of the private respondents did not confer any right, title and possession of the said land in their favour. The alleged permission was granted with respect to Plot No.168, whereas the present dispute relates to Plot No.1608 and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any valid permission granted under Section 46 of the Act, 1908. 4. It is also submitted that the previously restoration cases filed by Kaliya Oraon as well as Kaila Oraon and others against Shibnath Lohar and others have no legal sanctity in view of the fact that the said persons are not the legal heirs of the recorded tenant-Juthan Oraon as per genealogical table provided by the petitioner in the courts below. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State respondents submits that the petitioner has raised disputed question of fact which cannot be decided under writ jurisdiction of this Court and on that score alone, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State respondents submits that the petitioner has raised disputed question of fact which cannot be decided under writ jurisdiction of this Court and on that score alone, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. It is further submitted that S.A.R. Case No.143 of 1988-89 was earlier filed by Kaila Oraon for the said land, which was rejected vide order dated 29.01.1990 and in the said case, the predecessors-in-interest of the private respondents were the opposite parties. Another restoration case i.e. SAR Case no.57 of 1988- 89 was also filed for the same land by Kaila Oraon, Birsa Oraon, Janki Oraon and Gendu Oraon arraying the ancestors of the private respondents as opposite parties which was also rejected vide order dated 13.3.1997 on the ground of res-judicata/ constructive res-judicata. The petitioner or his predecessor-in-interest never challenged the said orders and as such the same have attained finality. The petitioner is now challenging the propriety of the order passed in Misc. Case No.112 R 8 II of 1963-64 after lapse of about 57 years, which is impermissible in the eyes of law. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The revisional authority (the respondent no.2) in its order dated 06.09.2021 has observed that the permission for transfer of the said land was recommended by the Rent Suit Deputy Collector, Ranchi to the Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi, who accordingly granted permission. Thereafter, the land was transferred in favour of Shibnath Lohar and Chhotan Lohar by way of registered sale deed and subsequently the land was mutated and rent receipts were issued in their favour. It has further been observed that two SAR cases were filed for the same land in the year 1988-89 and both were rejected, but the said orders of rejection were never challenged before the higher forum. Thus, the restoration application filed by the petitioner is barred by res-judicata. 8. The petitioner in the present writ petition has also questioned the validity of the order dated 22.10.1964 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi under Section 46 of the Act, 1908 granting permission for transfer of the land in question in favour of the ancestors of the private respondents. 8. The petitioner in the present writ petition has also questioned the validity of the order dated 22.10.1964 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Ranchi under Section 46 of the Act, 1908 granting permission for transfer of the land in question in favour of the ancestors of the private respondents. This Court is of the view that since the said order was passed in the year 1964, which was not challenged by the petitioner’s ancestor before the higher forums, the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the same after lapse of more than 50 years. Moreover, the said land was transferred in favour of the ancestors of the private respondents in the year 1965 by way of registered sale deed and since then they/their ancestors have been in possession of the same and as such the land restoration application filed by the petitioner was itself barred by limitation. That apart, SAR cases were earlier filed twice against the ancestors of the private respondents for restoration of the said land which were rejected and as such the appellate as well as revisional authorities have rightly held that the present land restoration application is barred by the principle of res-judicata. One of the claims of the petitioner is that the restoration applications earlier filed by Kaliya Oraon and Kaila Oraon and others were not in the genealogy of the recorded tenant. Such factual plea of the petitioner cannot be entertained by this court in view of concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the appellate as well as revisional authorities. 9. In the case of Rajendra Diwan Vs. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala & Another, reported in (2019) 20 SCC 143 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in exercise of its extraordinary power of superintendence and/or judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court should restrict interference to the cases of patent error of law which go to the root of the decision such as perversity, arbitrariness and/or unreasonableness, violation of principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction and usurpation of powers. The High Court is not supposed to re-assess or re-analyse the evidence and/or materials available on record. 10. In the case of Krishnanand (Dead) through legal representatives & Others Vs. The High Court is not supposed to re-assess or re-analyse the evidence and/or materials available on record. 10. In the case of Krishnanand (Dead) through legal representatives & Others Vs. Director of Consolidation & Others, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 553 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court should not have entered into re-appreciation of evidence and reversed the findings of fact arrived at by the three authorities below especially because the authorities had neither exceeded their jurisdiction nor had acted perversely. 11. Thus, it is well settled principle of law that the High Court should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in exercise of its extraordinary power of superintendence and/or judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India unless it reflects that the authority who passed the impugned order did not have jurisdiction to render the finding or acted in excess of its jurisdiction or the finding is patently perverse. 12. Since no such perversity is found in the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the appellate as well as revisional authority warranting interference of this Court, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.