The period of limitation for filing an application under Section 46 (4A) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, is 12 years, as provided in the proviso to the section, and not 30 years, as provided in the Bihar Schedule Area Regulation, 1969, unless the land in question is located in a scheduled area.

S.B. Sinha, J.

This application is directed against the orders dated 7.2.1982 passed by the respondent no. 3 as contained in Annexure 2, the order dated 25.11.1985 passed by the respondent no. 2 as contained in Annexure 3 and as also the order dated 26.8.1986 passed by the respondent no. 1 as contained in Annexure 5 to the writ application.

2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.

3. It appears that the respondent nos. 4 and 5 claiming themselves to be the members of scheduled tribes filed an application before the respondent no. 3 purported to be under Section 46 (4A) of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act for restoration of the lands comprised within plot nos. 44 and 45 appertaining to khata no. 33 measuring 6.35 acres of land situated in village Tanr Mohanper, P.S. Jaridih in the District of Giridih. The sale application was registered as Land Restoration Case No.5 of 1981-82.

4. As it appears from paragraph 5 of the writ application the petitioner in his show cause alleged as follows:-

"That on being noticed, the petitioner filed his show cause claiming valid right title interest and possession over 2.26 acres of lands of plot no. 44 under khata no. 33 on the following set of facts amongst others :-

(a) That the respondents had parted with the possession of the land before 1950 and had put one Pritam Singh in possession thereof after taking full consideration amount.

(b) That Pritam Singh came and continued in possession thereof without any kind of hindrance or objections by the respondents, who ultimately executed a registered deed of relinquishment on 6.8.1962 acknowledging the title and possession of Pritam Singh over 2.26 acres of lands.

(c) That the said Pritam Singh being in possession of the lands in his own right title and interest sold the same to one Banshi Lal Gupta.

(d) That Banshi Lal Gupta subsequently sold and transferred the same in favour of the petitioner by virtue of two sale deeds dated 10.8.1962 and 1.9.1962.

(e) That as such the petitioner name and continued in possession thereof in his own right, title and interest ever since the year 1962 to the knowledge of all concerned and also constructed his residential house, well and various other structures thereon.

(f) That the petitioner is also mutated with respect thereto and is duly paying the rent to the State Government against the grant of proper rent receipts.

(g) That, as such, the claim for restoration besides being illegal was hopelessly barred by limitation."

5. It appears that by reason of the impugned order dated 7.2.1982 (Annexure 1), the respondent no. 3 allowed the said application. According to the petitioner, after he acquired the said lands from one Sri Banshi Lal Gupta he transferred a portion of the same to different persons and thus the petitioner as also his transferees being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order dated 7.2.1982 preferred three different appeals. Two of the appeals including the appeal of the petitioner being Appeal Nos. 20/82 and 19/82 were preferred before the Additional Collector, Giridih and Appeal no. 61/82 was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih by Had Shankar Chouhey, Prayag Choubey, Sheo Shankar Choubey. Premchand Dubey and Smt. Gautam Devi. However, Appeal no. 61/82 was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih by an order dated 3.2.1983.

6. It appears that thereafter the Deputy Commissioner directed the Additional Collector, Giridih to dismiss the appeal preferred by the petitioner as also by one of his transferees being Appeal no. 19/82 and Appeal no. 20/82. The Additional Collector, Giridih did not follow the direction of the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 thereafter withdrew the said Appeals no. 19/81 and 20/82 to his own court and by an order dated 25.11.1985 (Annexure 3) dismissed the said appeals.

7. The petitioner preferred a revision application before the respondent no. 1 as against the said order and in the memo of revision categorically pointed out the mala f