This writ application has been filed on behalf of the sole petitioner for quashing an order dated 10.6.1971 passed by the respondent-Sub-divisional Officer in purported exercise of the power conferred on him by section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). By that order, the Sub-divisional Officer has directed the petitioner to restore the lands in question to the possession of respondent no. 1. A copy of that order is annexure-l to the writ application. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Magistrate, Ranchi which was dismissed on 9.12.1975. A copy of that order is annexure-2 to the writ application. The revision application filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Commissioner of Chotanagpur Division was also dismissed by order dated 6.2.1976, a copy whereof is annexure-3 to the writ application. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid orders have been passed in contravention of the provisions of the Act, and the Rules made thereunder, and. as such, liable to be quashed by this Court.

2. From the statements made in the writ application it appears that plot nos. 523, 549 and 1813 of khata no. 236 of village Hotchar in the district of Ranchi, measuring 0.94 acre was bakast Bhuinhari Pahanai land of one Madho Pahan. It was recorded in the name of said Madho Pahan. Dukhan Pahan (respondent no.1) is the son of the aforesaid Madho Pahan. According to the petitioner, respondent no. 1 transferred the said land to the petitioner. Later, a title suit was filed en behalf of the petitioner, which was numbered as Title Suit no. 519 of 1968 in the court of Munsif, Ranchi. That title suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner. The date, however, of such decree is not known. Sometime in the year 1970, perhaps, a petition was filed on behalf of respondent no 1 under section 71A of the Act, before the respondent-Sub-divisional Officer for restoration of the lands in question on the ground that the transfer has been made in contravention of the provisions of the Act. On the basis of that application, Miscellaneous Case no 134 of 1970 was registered and it was ultimately allowed by the impugned order dated 10.6.1971, as already stated above, which was affirmed in appeal end revision filed on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that section 71-A of the Act, has no application to lands which are part and parcel of bhuinhari tenure, and such, the respondent-Sub-divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. By the Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1969 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Regulation), section 71-A was introduced in the Act. The relevant portion of section 71-A is as follows :-

"If at any time it comes to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that transfer of land belonging to a raiyat who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes has taken place in contravention of section 46 or any other provision of the Act, or by any fraudulent method, he may, after giving reasonable opportunity to the transferee, who is proposed to be evicted, to show cause and after making necessary enquiry in the matter evict the transferee from such land….."

By the aforesaid Regulation, certain amendments were made in different Acts including the Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908), Limitation Act, (Act XXXVI of 1963). The proviso to Article 65 of the Limitation Act, was amended and period for adverse possession was raised to 30 years. It appears that a wide discretion was vested in the Deputy Commissioner concerned to evict transferees in respect of “land belonging to a raiyat who is a member of the Schedule Tribes” which has taken place in contravention of section 46 or any other provision of the Act, or which is obtained by fraudulent method. In view of the said provision, if it is held that the petitioner has taken transfer of the land belonging to a raiyat in contravention of the p