These two writ petitions have been filed against the common order dated 25.11.2002 passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, in Ranchi SAR Revision No. 46/1997. This order of the Commissioner has been annexed as Annexure-7 in WPC No. 6768/ 2002, Annexure-6 in WPC No. 6729/2002, by which in exercise of the revisional power, the learned Commissioner has set aside the order dated 30.10.1996 passed by the Dy. Commissioner, Ranchi in SAR Appeal No. 18R, 15/94-95 and allowed the revision application, filed by Respondent No.5 Bandhan Oraon.

2. The relevant facts, in short, are that a proceeding under Section 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act, being SAR Case No. 26/89-90 was initiated on an application made by Bandhan Oraon, S/o Sanicharwa Oraon (Respondent No.5 herein) against Smt. Pratima Bakshi (Respondent No.6) for restoration of the land appertaining to Plot No. 1589 within Khata No. 121 area 52 decimals. It was claimed on the ground that the applicant Bandhan Oraon was illegally dispossessed from the said land though he is the descendent of the recorded tenant, and a member of Scheduled Tribes. The writ petitioners Sarmistha Sinha and Meera Prasad were added as party respondents in the aforesaid proceeding before the S.A.R. Officer since they had purchased part of the disputed land by registered deeds of sale.

3. The Special Officer, SAR, by his order dated 30th November, 1994, contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition, dismissed the application for restoration, mainly on the ground that on 22.11.1957, by a registered Kabuliat, the nature of the disputed land had been changed and it was made "Ghhaparband" with the permission of the landlord and therefore, Section 71 A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act has no application in a case of 'Ghhaparbandi' lands.

4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Special Officer, S.A.R., Bandhan Oraon (Respondent No.5) preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, which was registered as SAR. Appeal No. 18R, 15/94-95. The Deputy Commissioner, by terms of the order contained in Annexure-4, dated 30.10.1996, dismissed the appeal after hearing the parties and confirmed the order passed by the Special Officer, SAR holding that Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act does not apply in the case of Ghhaparbandi land and that the application filed by the applicant for restoration of the land was barred by limitation since it was filed after a lapse of 40 years.

5. The respondent no. 5 thereafter, moved before the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, by filing a revision application against the orders passed by the Special Officer as well as against the order of the Deputy Commissioner which was registered as Ranchi SAR Revision No. 14/1997. The learned Commissioner by the impugned order dated 25.11.2002 contained in Annexure-7, has allowed the revision application and set aside the orders passed by the Special Officer as well as the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, and directed for restoration of the land in question in favour of Respondent No.5 Bandhan Oraon. It is this order, which has been challenged by both the writ petitioners in these two writ petitions.

6. The petitioners of both the writ petitions namely, Sarmistha Sinha and Meera Prasad, are the purchasers of part of the lands in question. The petitioner Sarmistha Sinha has claimed to have purchased 6.25 kathas of land from Smt. Pratima Bakshi by a registered sale deed on 24.8.1990, whereas the petitioner Meera Prasad of WPC No. 6729/2002 has claimed to have purchased 8 kathas of the lands out of the plot in question from Smt. Sibani Mukerjee by a registered sale deed dated 31.4.1984 and the said Smt. Sibani Mukherjee, i.e. her vendor had purchased the said land from Smt. Pratima Bakshi by a registered sale deed dated 8.4.1976.

7. The case of the petitioners is that the lands in question, i.e. plot no. 1589, under Khata No. 121 measuring an area of 152 acres was originally r