Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.-The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ, order or direction against the respondents to quash the order dated 26.6.2002 passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in S.A.R. Revision Case No. 78/99 vide which the possession was restored and the order of the Additional Collector was set aside.

2. The facts, in brief, are set out as under:-

The present case relates to a land in the revisional survey khata No. 51 & 79 of village Gurgain, P.S. Ormanjhi, districtRanchi measuring about 21.61 acres and the same is recorded in the name of Sukar Pahan in the revisional survey' record of rights. According to petitioner Sukar Pahan had a brother Baija Pahan who was living separately. The petitioner has given a genealogical table to indicate the relation between the brother and the respondent No. 5 and the same is quoted as under:-

3. According to petitioners the respondent No.5 filed an application for restoration of the abovesaid land under Section 71-A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act before the Special Officer under Scheduled Area Regulation, 1969 against the present petitioner No.1 and the father of the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 on the ground that the land was in illegal possession of the petitioner in contravention to the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act. The case was registered and numbered as SAR. Case No. 51/87. The petitioners filed their show cause stating that they were legal heirs and agnates of the recorded tenants Sukar Pahan and they were in possession of the land in question as heirs and successors and there has been no transfer of land. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No.5 is not the legal heir and thus he has no right to seek restoration of the land. The learned Special Officer vide its order dated 21.12.1991 ordered for restoration. An appeal was preferred by petitioner No. 1 and petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 before the Additional Collector, Ranchi and the same was registered and numbered as S.A.R. Appeal No.156/89 challenging the order dated 21.12.1991 and the learned Additional Collector after hearing both the sides set aside the order passed by the Special Officer and allowed the appeal vide order dated 25.11.1998.

4. Respondent No.5 being aggrieved preferred a revision before the learned Court of Commissioner, South Chhota-nagpur Division, Ranchi challenging the order dated 25.11.98 and the same was registered and numbered as SAR. Revision No. 78/99. The learned Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi after hearing the parties allowed the revision and sot aside the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 25.11.98 while restoring the order dated 21.12.1991 passed by the Special Officer. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the order passed by the revisional authority dated 26.6.2002.

5. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the revisional authority failed to consider the ingredients of Section 71-A of the C.N.T. Act and passed the order which was beyond its jurisdiction. It has further been contended that the issue of Ghar Damad decided by the revisional authority was not within the scope of the revisional power and jurisdiction as laid down under Section 71-A of the C.N.T. Act. The counsel of the petitioner further submits that there was no transfer which has taken place between the parties and the present petitioners were in possession as they were the heirs and near agnates of the recorded tenants and they stepped into the shoes of recorded tenant after the death and thus the order of restoration passed by the respondent Commissioner is liable to be quashed. It has also been contended that respondent No. 5 was neither a raiyat nor an heir under the Munda Customary Law and as such he has no right to seek restoration under Section 71-A of the C.N.T. Act.

6. The counsel for private respondent No. 5 has submitted that Rogan Pahan, son of Sukar Pahan had no male issue and had only