JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this appeal the appellant who is admittedly a tribal residing in Chotanagpur Division made an application under Section 46(4) (a) under Chotanagpur Tenancy Act for getting back possession of the disputed land which according to the appellant was surrendered by the father of the appellant and on such surrender the said land was settled on the respondent Chando Kumari @ Most Dumari and Others. Such application was made on 12-1-1976 before the Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms. The application was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner. The appellant thereafter preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector and the case was remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms but the matter was again dismissed by the said Deputy Commissioner by order dated 29-1-1994. The appellant again preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Land Reforms. But Additional Collector again passed an order of remand before the Deputy Commissioner. Such order of remand was challenged by the appellant in revision. By an order dated 8-10-1986, the Commissioner allowed the revision application. The Commissioner inter alia came to the finding that the appellant was in possession within a period of 12 years from the date of making the said application under Section 46(4) (a) and as such there was no occasion to remand the matter for decision by the Deputy Collector.

3. It appears that in coming to the said finding about the possession of the appellant within 12 years from the date of making the application under Section 46 reliance was made on the entry in the Bhujarat Record of Rights of 1960 where the possession of the appellant was noted. The Commissioner also took into consideration the fact that the opposite parties had produced rent receipts only from 1961 onwards.

4. Against the said decision of the Commissioner in favour of the appellant, the opposite parties preferred a writ petition before the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court and by an order dated 23-4-1991, the Single Judge of the Patna High Court allowed the said writ petition relying on a Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Ram Chartdra Sahu v. State ofsihar. It was held in the said decision that forcible possession did not amount to transfer.

5. The appellant thereafter preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court but such appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter a special leave petition was filed before this Court out of which this appeal arises.

6. It may be stated here that the decision of the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Ram Chander Sahu v. St~te ofsihar has been set aside by this Court on an appeal filed by one of the respondents in the said case namely, Pandey Oraon and the decision of this Court in Pandey Oraon v. Ram Chander Sahul. It has been held by this Court that the expression transfer appearing in Section 71(a) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act must be interpreted liberally in the context of the beneficial legislation for protection of a member of the Scheduled Tribe and it has been held that the transfer as understood in Transfer of Property Act should not be applied for the purpose of deciding the case of transfer under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. It has been held that surrender by a tenant will also amount to transfer for getting relief under the said Act.

7. Mr Raju Ramachandran, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has contended that in the instant case the finding of the revisional authority namely the Commissioner that the application under Section 46(4) (a) was made ~vithin 12 years from the date of dispossession has been made very objectively by placing reliance on the Bhujarat Record of Rights of 1960 and such finding should be accepted by this Court to be correct. He has submitted that although the decision of this Court in Pandey Oraon casel was made relating to a case under Section 71-A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act but