M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. Heard Mr. V. Shiv nath, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.N. Das and learned GP 2 for the respondents and with their consent this writ application is disposed of at the admission stage itself.

2. This writ application is directed against the order dated 18.5.1999 passed by the respondent No. 1, Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in SAR Revision No. 206/97 whereby he affirmed the order of restoration passed by the respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in SAR Appeal No. 61 of 1995-96 and reversed the order dated 30.9.1998 passed by the Respondent No. 3, Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dalbhum, Jamshedpur in R.P. Cas No. 3 of 1994-95.

3. The fact of the case lies in a narrow compass.

4. The respondent Nos. 4 to 8 being the members of scheduled tribe filed application under Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Jamshedpur (in short LRDC) for restoration of land under Khata No. 49, Plot No. 308 measuring an area of 44 decimals situated at Mouja Eardih, district Singhbhum East. The restoration application was filed on the ground, inter alia, that the land in question stood recorded in the cadestral survey records of right in the name of their predecessor Paran Manjhi as recorded raiyat and after his death applicants remained in peaceful possession of the said land but they have been dispossessed on the basis of transfer made in violation of the provisions of Section 46 of the said Act. The writ petitioners, who are the opposite parries, appeared and filed their show cause stating-, inter alia, that the land in question was held and possessed by one Tehmina Dastur, wife of late Sohrab Dastur, who is by caste Parsi and was not a member of scheduled tribe, much before the revisional survey operation, which took place in 1964. The revisional survey records of right of 1964 was prepared in the name of Tehmina Dastur. It is stated that the recorded rail/at namely Tehmina Dastur paid rent to the State of Bihar and in the year 1982 said Tehmina Dastur and her daughter sold the land to the petitioner by registered sale-deed dated 21.1.1982 for valuable consideration. After the aforesaid purchase the writ petitioners constructed the buildings and structures for setting up a factory by investing substantial amount. The LRDC rejected the restoration application holding that although the name of Paran Manjhi recorded in the cadestral survey records of right but in the revisional survey records of right 1964 the name of vendor was recorded and, therefore, the RS records of right will prevail. In appeal filed by the respondents, the Deputy Commissioner reversed the order passed by the LRDC and allowed restoration application holding that the land in question is a raiyati land belonging to the member of scheduled tribe and they were dispossessed in violation of the provisions of the Act. The revisional authority affirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner and dismissed the revision application.

5. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel for the petitioner, assailed the impugned order passed in revision on the following grounds :--

(1) The proceeding under Section71-A of the said Act was not maintainable for the reason that the land in question was duly recorded in the revisional survey records of right in the name of Tehmina Dastur, which has not presumptive value under Section 83 o the Act.

(2) The proceeding under Section71-A of the said Act was itself Barred by- limitation.

(3) The nature of land having been changed for non- agricultural purposes before the operation of Schedule Area Regulations, 1969, the provisions of CNT Act cannot be attracted.

(4) The authority while passing the impugned order has totally ignored the proviso to Section 71-A of the said Act, which provides for other remedy in the event substantial structures are found over the land in question.

6. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the appellate authority