M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. In these two writ petitions, since common questions of law and facts are involved, they have been heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. These writ petitions are directed against the common order, dated 4.4.2000 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in S.A.R. Revision Nos. 172, 173 and 182 of 1998, whereby revisions filed by the petitioners have been dismissed and orders passed by the Special Officer, Scheduled Areas Regulation under Section 71-A of the C.N.T. Act and the orders passed by the Additional Collector in appeals filed by the petitioners have been affirmed.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the land of Khata No. 135 situated at village Gari was held and possessed by Sanicharwa Oraon and Bhokre Oraon as recorded Raiyats. In 1941, the recorded Raiyats applied before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 49 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (in short the Act), seeking permission to transfer the land in favour of Bibi Taiba Khatoon. The Deputy Commissioner, vide order, dated 17.7.1941 accorded permission for transfer of the land in question. The ex-landlord then preferred appeal before the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi being Revenue Appeals No. 1058 of 1941 which was dismissed and order was passed for filing draft agreement which was approved on 18.02.1942. The said draft agreement of transfer was finally registered and the land in question was sold in favour of the petitioners and a registered sale-deed was executed on 17.03.1942 and the transferee was put in possession of the said land.

4. Petitioners further case is that in the year 1949 the disputed land was converted into chhaparbandi land by virtue of registered document, entered into by and between the ex-landlord and the transferee, namely, Taiba Khatoon. It is contended that Taiba Khatoon said to have continuously exercised right, title, interest and possession over the land in question and in the year 1975 she sold it to one Madhusudan Choudhary. The said Madhusudan Choudhary after exercising all right, title, interest and possession of the land till 1981, sold it in favour of the present petitioners.

5. In the year 1990-91, for the first time, a restoration application was filed by the concerned respondent under Section 71-A of the C.N.T. Act for restoration of the land. The petitioners appeared and filed their show-cause stating, inter alia, that transfer of the land took place after obtaining due permission of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi under Section 49 of the Act and, therefore, restoration application under Section 71-A is misconceived and the Special Officer has no jurisdiction to entertain the restoration application. It was also specifically stated that the restoration applications are hopelessly barred by limitation. The Special Officer, after hearing the parties, by order, dated 16.10.1995 directed restoration of land and against that: order the petitioners preferred appeals before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi which was dismissed. The petitioners thereafter moved before the Commissioner. Chotanagpur Division. Ranchi by filing revision petitions which too have been dismissed by the impugned order.

6. Mr. S. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed the impugned orders as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel, firstly, submitted that in view of Sections 49(5), Section 71-A of the Act has no application and therefore, restoration application itself was wholly misconceived. Learned counsel further submitted that the authorities under the Act have committed serious error of law in holding that the restoration application was not barred by limitation, although it was filed after more than 50 years from the date of transfer of the land. Learned counsel in this connection relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jai Mangal Oraon v. Mira Nayak, 2000 (5) SCC 141.

7. Mr. N.N. Tiwary, learned counsel a