Amareshwar Sahay, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. The respondent No. 5 Singha Oraon, filed an application for restoration of Plot No. 1061 under khata No. 177 of Village Karkarra under Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act alleging therein that the transfer of the land was made in contravention of the provision of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. The respondent No. 4, Special Regulation Officer, vide order as contained in Annexure-5, passed an order for restoration of the land in favour of respondent No. 5. Against the said order passed by respondent No. 4 the writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Ranchi, which was dismissed vide order as contained in Annexure-6. Thereafter, the petitioner-preferred revision under Section 217 of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, which was also dismissed vide order as contained in Annexure 7. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid three orders passed by the Special Regulation Officer, the Additional Collector and of the Commissioner.

3. The case of the petitioner in short is that in the Revisional Survey Records of Right, khata No. 177 of Village Karkarra P.S. Mandar was recorded in the name of Singha Oraon as Adhbatai and in the remarks column it was mentioned that the land was mortgaged for Rs. 1500/- in 1921 and the same would be redeemed on payment of the mortgage amount. The ex-landlord mortgaged the R.S. Plot No. 1061 measuring an area of 1.41 acres to Prahalad Nand Tiwary in the year 1921 for Rs. 1500/- which was redeemed on payment of the mortgage money. The ex-landlord redeemed the mortgage in the year 1936 and came in possession thereof.

4. It is stated that an application was filed by the recorded Adhbataidar under Section 61 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, for commutation of the kind rent. The Rent Suit Deputy Collector by order dated 25.4.1957 held that respondent No. 5 failed to prove his possession over the disputed land and thereby rejected the said application. It is further stated that after vesting of the Zamindari, the ex-landlord filed return including the land of khata No. 177 of the said Village and he was recognized as raiyat of the State. Thereafter, the ex-landlord Sadanand Tiwary sold and transferred the land of khata No. 177, Plot No. 1061 measuring an area of 1.41 acres to the petitioner by virtue of registered document on 26.7.1967. It is stated that after the purchase of the land the petitioner applied for mutation of her name, which was allowed after making enquiry. It is further stated that in the recent survey also the draft record of right was prepared in the name of the petitioner without any objection.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser from the ex-landlord, who was in possession of the land since long. The respondent No. 6 redeemed the land and came in possession of the same but this fact was not at all considered either by the Special Officer or by the Appellate Authority or by the Revisional Authority and, therefore, the impugned orders were liable to be set aside.

6. On the other hand the learned counsel for respondent No. 5, who has contested the case of the petitioner, has submitted that the land in question was a "Kaimi" land and, therefore, the permission of the Deputy Commissioner was very much necessary before transfer of the said land, which was admittedly not taken, and, therefore the transfer of lands was absolutely in violation of the provision of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act. Therefore, the learned Courts below have rightly passed an order for restoration of the land. It is further submitted that there is concurrent findings of facts by the three Courts and, therefore, those findings on facts should not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction.

7. In order to test the submissions of the rival parties, I, gone through the orders passed by all the three Courts below. The Special O