S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Whether the surrender by a scheduled tribe raiyat of his statutory right to hold land for the purposes of cultivation (as defined in section 6) would amount to a transfer within the meaning of S.71A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 ? In the alternative would such a surrender directly coupled with the subsequent settlement of such land by the landlord be a transfer within the ambit of the said S.71A of the Act? These are the two significant and inter-related questions which have necessitated this reference to the Full Bench.

2. The facts may be noticed with relative brevity having relevance to the issues aforesaid. On the petitioners own showing, the land in dispute herein stood recorded in the name of Lalu Oraon, the father of respondent 4. The said Lalu Oraon, by a registered deed executed on the 29th Mar. 1954, surrendered the said land in favour of his landlord, Mahendra Narayan Tiwari. This was then purported to be allotted to one Jogendra Narayan Tiwari said to be one of the co-sharers, who executed a registered deed of settlement dt. 30th March, 1954 in favour of Shrimati Mantoran Kuwari on an annual rental of Rs. 134/-. The said settlee later transferred the land in favour of her daughter, Shrimati Parbati Debi by a registered deed of gift dt. 16th Feb. 1979. In turn the said Shrimati Parbati Debi then transferred the land by a registered sale deed dt. 21st Sept. 1981 in favour of the petitioner Shrimati Bina Rani Ghosh.

3. Subsequently the petitioner was served with a notice dt. 29th Dec. 1981 by respondent 3, the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Ranchi, to show cause why the land should not be restored in favour of Gangaram Oraon, respondent 4. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner appeared and showed cause, and after keen contest, in which evidence was led by the parties, respondent 3, by his order (annexure 4) directed the restoration of the land in favour of respondent No. 4 under S.71A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act (hereinafter called the Act). Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Ranchi, who, by his considered order (annexure 5) dt. 21st Mar. 1984, dismissed the appeal. The petitioner then filed the revision before the Commissioner, which also met the same fate by the latters detailed order (annexure 6) dt. 9th April, 1984. The present writ petition seeks to challenge the concurrent orders of the aforesaid three authorities.

4. Now, the core of the argument of Mr. S. B. Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that a mere surrender by a raiyat of his right was not a transfer which could possibly attract the provisions of S.71A of the Act. It was contended that the concept of transfer under the said section is identical with that of the transfer of property under S.5 of the T.P. Act. Consequently, according to counsel, a mere surrender by itself or even when coupled with the subsequent settlement of land by the landlord would not amount to a transfer which was hit by S.71A. Reliance was placed on Trilochan Panda V/s. Dinabandhu Panda (1918) 3 Pat LJ 88 : (AIR 1917 Patna 103) and Bhagwandas V/s. Koka Pahan 1980 BLT (Rep) 35. The larger submission was that the whole proceeding by the authorities below was without jurisdiction and vitiated on this score.

5. At the very threshold it seems apt to clear the decks for the examination of the two questions formulated at the outset because some attempt was made on behalf of the petitioner to befog the real issues involved. On the petitioners own showing vide annexure 2 (which was her show cause in the court of the Deputy Collector, Scheduled Area Regulation) in reply to the notice under S.71A issued to her, the firm stand taken on her behalf was in the terms following :

"3. That the land under Khata No. 11 plot No. 672 area 461 decimals and Khata No. 39 plot No. 674 area 4 decimals situated at village Boreya P. S. Kanka District Ranchi stand recorded in the name "of La