This appeal challenges the Judgment and Order dated 16.5.2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3309 of 1999 (R). Instead of repeating the facts, we consider it appropriate to reproduce the entire impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is as follows:

"6/16.5.2002:- The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 2.7.97 passed by respondent no. 3. Special Officer, Schedule Area regulation, Ranchi in SAR Case No. 2341 1992-93 whereby he has ordered for restoration of the land in favour of respondent no. 4 under the provisions of Section 71 A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (shortly C.N.T. Act) and also the orders dated 31.7.99 and 26.10.99 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in S.A.R. Appeal No. 137R-15 of 1997-98 and the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in S.A.R. Revision No. 118/99 respectively whereby the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner have been dismissed.

2. Petitioner's case is that he has been coming in possession of the land appertaining to R.S. Plot No. 1080 under Khata No. 112 of Village-Pandra measuring an area of 11 decimals since 5.11.1949 and he constructed boundary wall and pucca building more than 40 years back and got his name mutated in the Office of the State of Bihar and Ranchi Municipal Corporation. In 1992 respondent no. 4 made an application before the Special officer, Schedule Area Regulation, respondent no. 3, for restoration of the land under Section 71 A of the CNT Act on the allegation that the land was transferred by way of mortgage in 1960 fraudulently. The petitioner filed show cause stating, inter alia, that the land was not the raiyati land, rather, a non-agricultural land in which he constructed building and has been coming in possession of the same for more than 40 years. Respondent No.3, Special Officer, passed order for restoration of the land in favour of respondent no. 4. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi which was also dismissed. The petitioner then preferred revision before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi which was also dismissed and the order of restoration was confirmed.

3. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the impugned orders on the ground that the respondents have not at all considered the admitted case of other parties that the petitioner constructed building and has been coming in possession of the land for more than 40 years. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents-authorities have committed serious errors of law in not considering the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 71 A of the CNT Act and instead of validating the transfer, order of restoration was passed.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Jai Prakash, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 submitted that admittedly the land was recorded in the R.S. records of rights in the name of Soma Oraon son of Tokro Oraon. Learned counsel submitted that the documents submitted by the petitioner did not establish that substantial structure was constructed on the land in question before 1969 and so the petitioner cannot get the benefits of the second proviso of Section 71 A of the CNT Act.

5. From perusal of the impugned orders it appears that the petitioner had filed photocopy of a sada Hukumnama dated 5.11.1949 granted by a raiyat in respect of the land in question. The petitioner also filed electric bills, municipal tax receipts for the years 1989 onwards. The appellate authority disbelieved the Hukumnama on the ground that how a raiyat can grant Hukumnama in favour of another raiyat. The appellate authority further came to a finding that the land in question was transferred after 1969 in contravention of the provisions of Sections 46 and 49 of the CNT Act.

6. The Commissioner, in revision, held that prima facie the alleged transfer was made in contravention of the provisions of CNT Act without obtaining permission of the Deputy Commissi