D.K. Sen, C.J.-The material facts are the proceedings leading up to this appeal are, inter alia, that under three deeds of sale respectively dated the 9the February, 1953, the 6th January. 1962 and the 17th March. 1969. Rohina Mahto father of the appellants before us, purchased three separate plot of land, being 86 acres a appertaining to plot no. 39, 70 acres appertaining to plot no.32 and 37 acres appertaining to plot No. 741, all under khata no.39 of village Birdih, from vendors who were respectively recorded as soma lohar, Pitu Lohar and Roidas Lohar.

2. The said Rohina Mahto till his death and thereafter his successors, the appellants, continued in possession of the aforesaid lands and had been paying rent in respect thereof.

3. Subsequently, one Budhram Lohar, the respondent no.5 hereto, son of one tepa Lohar, of village Birdih filed an application before the special Officer under the Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, Khunti, district Ranchi, at the relevant time the Deputy Collector, Khunti, (respondent no.4), under section 71(A) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, claiming restoration of possession of the said three plots of land from the appellants. The said proceeding was marked as Case no. 4816 of 1976.

4. The appellants appeared in the said case and contended that as the respondent no.5 was a Lohar, not a member of Scheduled Tribe, the said application was not maintainable.

5. In support of their contention the appellants produced before the respondent no.4 certified copies of the records in Cases Nos. 128, 129 and 130 of 1976-77 between Debi Lohar and Chand Mahto, as also the said three sale deeds and also adduced oral evidence of three witnesses.

6. The respondent no.5, on the other hand, produced before the respondent no.4 a certified copy of the judgment in case No.14 of 1970-71 between Debi Lohar Vs. Manmodh Mahto and others. He also adduced oral evidence through four witnesses.

7. The respondent no.4 disposed of the case by his order dated the 27the September, 1977 (Annexure ‘8’ to the memorandum of appeal).

8. The respondent no.4 accepted the judgment in case no.14 of 1970-71 produced by the respondent no.5, where it was held that the applicant in that case, namely Debi Lohar of village Birdih was a ‘Lohar’ or ‘Lohara’ and member of a Scheduled Tribe. The respondent No.4 distinguished the judgment in cases Nos. 128, 129 and 130 of 1976-77 produced by the appellants where one Debi Lohar was found to be a ‘Lohar’ by case and not a member of the Schedule Tribe, as the entries in the land records were not rebutted by evidence and were accepted to be correct.

9. The respondent No.4 also considered oral evidence adduced by respondent No.5 and noted that the witnesses called by respondent No. 5 had stated that the respondent No.5 belonged to the scheduled Tribe of ‘Lohra’ or ‘Lohara’ and led the life of a member of such a Tribe. He noted further that such witnesses did not contradict themselves in cross examinations.

10. As to the oral evidence adduced by the appellant the respondent No.4 found that one of the witnesses of the appellants was an interested one as his brother was contesting the respondent no.5 in other proceedings. He found further that the other witnesses had little knowledge of the matter in issue and could not depose on material facts.

11. The respondent No. 4 held as follows:-

“Thus in the context of the evidence and statements of the witnesses, We arrive at a conclusion that the entry of (Lohar) as the caste of the petitioner in the record of rights and sale deeds is rebutted by these evidence and thus the petitioner is found to be a member of scheduled Tribs the result is that the transaction of lands involved in these proceedings in which the petitioner Budhram Lohar is a party stands as illegal and in contravention of the Provisions of section 46 of the C.N.T. Act.”

12. Accordingly, the respondent No.4 directed the appellants to vacate the land in dispute in favour of the respondent No.5.

13.