JUDGMENT : Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. 1. Writ Petition is preferred to quash the order of restoration under Section 71A of the C.N.T. Act. Restoration order passed by in SAR Case-1/87 has been affirmed in appeal and revision. 2. As per the case of the petitioner, the land appertaining to Khata No. 103, Plot Nos. 1466, 1467 and 1468, P.S. Kuru, Dist.-Ranchi (now Lohardaga) was purchased by the petitioners by two registered deeds of sale executed on 20.01.1959 by Parmeshwar Sahu. His father Dasrath Sahu had acquired title over the land by auction purchase in 1936 in Rent Execution Case No. 2061/1935- 36. After the said purchase, the land was mutated in the name of the Petitioners and rent is being paid. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the Petitioners that instant restoration case is barred by res judiciata as Deothan Oraon, father of respondent nos. 5 to 8, had preferred SAR Case No. 22/1974-75 before the Deputy Collector and Special Officer, Lohardaga for restoration of this land under Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act (for short CNT Act) which was dismissed vide order dated 09.02.1975 and the said order attained finality. Despite this, another SAR Case No.01 of 1987, was filed by the father of the private respondents with respect to the same plot. 4. It is further argued that the original transfer took place by way of auction purchase in 1935, whereas the present restoration case was filed in the year 1987 i.e. after reasonable time of 50 years for preferring a restoration application. As per the settled law if the restoration application is filed after 30 years it is not accepted to be reasonable. 5. It is further submitted that in case of auction sale, Section 71A will have no application. 6. Reliance has placed by the learned counsel on the following authorities: CWJC No.1310 of 1986 [R] (Dhananjai Mandal Allias Suri & Ors. V. State of Bihar), AIR 2008 SC 1139 (Fulchand Munda & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar), (2004) 8 SCC 340 ( Situ Sahu Vs. State of Jharkhand ), (2000) 5 SCC 141 ( Jay Mangal Oraon Vs. Meera Nayak ). 7. The private Respondents being Respondent Nos.5(a) to 5 (e) and Respondent Nos.6 and 7 had appeared through counsel in this case. However, no one turns up on repeated call. Vs. State of Bihar), (2004) 8 SCC 340 ( Situ Sahu Vs. State of Jharkhand ), (2000) 5 SCC 141 ( Jay Mangal Oraon Vs. Meera Nayak ). 7. The private Respondents being Respondent Nos.5(a) to 5 (e) and Respondent Nos.6 and 7 had appeared through counsel in this case. However, no one turns up on repeated call. From the earlier order passed on the last date also, none had appeared on behalf of these respondents. 8. Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned order, but failed to cite any legal provisions or case law with regard to delay in preferring the restoration case and the present suit being barred by res judicata. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials on record, the land, in question was auction-purchased by one Dasrath Sahu in Rent Execution Case No.2061/ 1935 and therefore there is merit in the submission that the original transfer took place in court auction, therefore Section 71-A CNT Act shall not apply. 10. The SAR case was filed in the year 1987 and more than 50 years have elapsed in preferring the restoration application which cannot be said to be reasonable and within time for invoking jurisdiction under Section 71A of the C. N. T. Act, 1908. Restoration Case was also barred by res judicata, as the earlier application for restoration was rejected. 11. Under the circumstances, the impugned order(s) is set aside. Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed and pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.