S.B.Sinha, J.

1. This writ application is directed against the orders dated 14-8-1984 passed by respondent No. 2 as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application, the order dated 14-10-1985 passed by respondent No. 3 as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ application and the order dated 6-5-1986 passed by respondent No. 4, as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application. By reason of the aforementioned orders, the said authorities directed restoration of the land in plot Nos. 227, 229, 230, 294, 295 and 296 measuring an area of 1.85 acres in village Madhukam, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, district Ranchi.

2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. By reason of a registered deed of surrender, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 surrendered the lands in question in favour of the then landlord. The then landlord, thereafter, settled the said land with one Chandi Prasad Kedia who came in possession thereof in the year 1948.

3. According to the petitioner, the said settled lands were partitioned amongst the co-sharers of the aforementioned settlee, as a result whereof, the petitioner came in possession of the lands in question and his name was -also mutated in the office of the State of Bihar and thereafter, he had been paying rent to it.

4. According to the petitioner, he transferred a major portion of the said land in favour of the respondent Nos. 7 and 18, who also get their names mutated in the office of the State of Bihar.

5. In the year, 1982, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 filed an application purported to be under Section 71-A 6f the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act wherein they challenged the aforementioned deed of surrender dated 2-11-1986 inter alia on the ground that the said deed of surrender was obtained by the then landlord by fraudulent means. The petitioner having been directed to file show cause in the said proceeding (sic)led his show cause. By reason of the impugned order, the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, inter alia, held: (a) That the surrender having been effected in November, 1946 i.e., not at the end of an agricultural year, the same was bad in law inasmuch as the provision of Section 72 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act was not complied with. (b) All the recorded tenants did not join in executing the deed of surrender.

6. Mr. Tapan Sen, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in view of the fact that the predecessors-in-interest of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 surrendered the properties in question in favour of the then landlord by reason of a registered instrument, the said respondents cannot challenge the legality of the deed of surrender on the ground that all recorded tenants did not join in the deed of surrender,

7. The learned Counsel also contended that in terras of Section 72 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, it is not necessary to effect a surrender only at the end of an agricultural year According to the learned Counsel, a surrender effected during an agricultural year, is also valid and for this proposition, the learned Counsel has relied upon a decision in the case of Dudhu Mahta and Anr. V/s. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1988 PLJR 27 (HOG) and 1988 BLT 180.

8. Mrs. Jaya Roy, learned Counsel appearing, on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6, on the other Hand, submitted that a surrender being a transfer within the meaning of Section 71-A of the. Chotanagpur Tenancy Act must conform to the provisions of Section 72 thereof and in a proceeding under Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, the Deputy Commissioner is endowed with a duty to see that surrender made by the raiyati is valid being in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 72 thereof.

9. Mrs. Roy further submitted that in the decision relied upon by Sri Sen, no reason has been assigned and as such the same should net be relied upon by his Court.

10. From a perusal of the impugned order as contained in Annexures 4, 5 and 6 to the writ application, it does not appear that