Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.: The main point sought to be answered in this appeal is as to whether Dar-raiyati settlement made in the year 1934 without permission of the Deputy Commissioner is violative of Section 46 or any other provisions of Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act (hereinafter to be referred as the “Act”), attracting mischief of Section 71A of the said Act.

2. The appellant claims to have validly possessed land of Revisional Survey Khata No.257, measuring an area of 23.07 acres of village Gotra, P.S. Simdega, District Gumla. The said land of Khata No.257 was recorded as KAIMI in the names of Mana Kharia and Suleman Kharia in the Revisional Survey Record of Rights as tenants in common with note of specific possession of the plots in the remarks column.

3. Mana Kharia was also known as Emmanuel Kharia. He mortgaged the land of his share to Manonit Ekka, mother of the appellant, on 14th March, 1934.

4. Suleman Kharia, another co-tenant, made a Dar-raiyat Settlement in favour of Manonit Ekka in respect of the land, measuring 14.29 acres of Khata No.257 by unregistered deed dated 19th March, 1934.

5. During subsistence of the mortgaged period, Mana Kharia too made Dar-raiyat Settlement in favour of Manonit Ekka in respect of the land, measuring 8.78 acres of Khata No.257 on accepting Salami by unregistered deed dated 8th April, 1936.

6. Since thereafter, the land is being held and possessed as Dar-raiyat by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant and subsequently by the appellant continuously on payment of rent.

7. Manonit Ekka died leaving behind two sons, namely, Kushal Maya Ekka and the appellant. They in exercise of their right of ownership and possession sunk a Pucca Well on a portion of Plot No.5022 and reclaimed upland (Tanr land) and converted the same into paddy land. At the relevant time, the cost came between Rs.30,000-40,000/-. They made further improvement in the land and have been coming in continuous cultivating possession of the land.

8. According to the appellant, as a confirmatory step, an indenture of sale was unilaterally executed by Suleman Kharia on 18th July, 1946, though the same remained dormant and inoperative and the land all along is held as Dar-raiyat.

9. After about more than 40 years Cyril Kharia, son of Mana Kharia (Respondent No.4 herein) filed an application under Section 71A of the said Act before the Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, praying for restoration of the said land.

10. Section 71A of the said Act has been enacted by Bihar Scheduled Areas Regulation, 1969 (Bihar Regulation 1 of 1969) in order to make provision for restoration of possession to the members of the Scheduled Tribes over the land unlawfully transferred.

1. The Special Officer registered the aforesaid application as SAR Case No.283 of 1979-80. Notice was issued to the appellant. He had appeared and contested the case. In his reply, it was, inter alia, contended that the application is not maintainable in aw and is liable to be rejected. There has been no violation of Section 46 or any other provision of the said Act. The land was validly acquired by virtue of Dar-raiyati Settlement long back in the year 1936. It was further contended that the application seeking restoration of the land after more than four decades is also barred by limitation.

12. The Special Officer after hearing the parties passed order dated 20th October, 1981 holding that the appellant himself is a member of the Scheduled Tribes. The land was given as Darraiyati settlement on payment of Salami more than 30 years ago. He has acquired valid right title and possession and that the application for restoration under Section 71A of the Act is not maintainable. He, thus, rejected the application.

13. Respondent no.4 preferred appeal against the said order before the Additional Collector, Gumla, being S.A.R. Appeal No.321 R 15 of 1981-82.

14. Learned Additional Collector allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Special Officer, o