The main legal point established is the requirement for proper enquiry and opportunity for all parties in cases under Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act.

R.K. Merathia, J.

1. In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders passed by respondents No. 2 and 4 rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (for short "the Act") for restoration of Plot Nos. 404, 405, 407, 413, 428, 429 and 430 of Khata No. 155 of Village Tisia, P.S. Kisko, District Lohardaga against respondents No. 5 to 7.

2. The facts in short are as follow:

According to the petitioner, lands in R.S. Khewat No. 7 of Village Tisia, P.O. & P.S. Kisko, District Lohardaga stood recorded in the record of rights in the name of petitioner's grand father Chaitu Sahi, a member of the scheduled tribe. The lands appertaining to Khata No. 155 under Khewat No. 7 were recorded as his "Bakast lands" and were in his khas possession which will be evident from the return filed by him in Form 'K' of the Bihar Land Reforms Act with a prayer to retain the same as 'raiyat'. The Revenue authorities after proper enquiry assessed the rent under Sections 5, 6 and 7 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act in the name of Chaitu Sahi vide Rent Assessment Case No. 52 of 1960-61 and Form 'M' was issued in his name. Petitioner filed an application under Section 71A of the Act for restoration of R.S. Plot Nos. 404, 405, 407, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 428, 429 and 430 appertaining to said Khata No. 155, in the year 1980-81 vide S.A.R. Case No. 9 of 1982-83. Respondent No. 5 appeared in the case. The said case was dismissed by respondent No. 4 by order dated 28.7.1984 on the ground that the petitioner could not prove that he is a member of the scheduled tribes. Petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No. 3 being S.A.R. Appeal No. 3-R-15 of 1984-85. Respondent No. 3 allowed the appeal in part by order dated 16.4.1987 (Annexure 3). It held that no doubt the petitioner was a member of the scheduled tribes but Plot Nos. 409, 410, 411 and 412 Area 1. 61 decimal was settled to Budhu Sahu (father of respondents No. 5 to 7) by registered deed No. 152 dated 19.1.1942. Accordingly, respondent No. 3 allowed the petitioner's appeal with regard to the remaining plots (404, 405, 407, 413, 428, 429, and 430). Against the said order, the petitioner filed a revision being S.A.R. Revision No. 147 of 1987 and respondents Nos. 5 to 7 also filed revision being S.A.R. Revision No. 148 of 1987 before respondent No. 2. (It may be mentioned here that one more revision being S.A.R. Revision No. 128 of 1987 was also heard along with the said revisions by the Commissioner which arose out of S.A.R. Case No. 10 of 1982-83 regarding Khata No. 146, Plot No. 602. In the present case, we are not concerned with S.A.R. Case No. 10 of 1982-83 or Revision No. 128 of 1987). The Commissioner disposed of all the revisions by a common order dated 30.12.1997 in favour of respondents No. 5 to 7.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this writ petition is confined to S.A.R. Revision No. 147 of 1987. He further submitted that in order to avoid further controversy, his client is ready to accept the order passed by respondent No. 3 allowing petitioner's claim in part regarding Khata No. 155.

On merits he submitted as follows. The revisional authority could not have relied on the purported Sada Hukumnama produced for the first time before it claiming settlement of Plot Nos. 404, 405, 407, 428, 429 and 430 of Khata No. 155. The said Sada Hukumnama was never produced before any authority. It cannot be believed that the grand father of the petitioner would settle the said lands in favour of respondents No. 5 to 7 by Sada Hukumnama in the year 1943, when he had allegedly settled other lands with respondents No. 5 to 7 by a registered document in the year 1942. The Commissioner without making any enquiry about the genuineness of the Sada Hukumnama and the rent receipts believed the same and rejected the revision filed by the petitioner. If the said lands were settled to Budhu Sahu by Sada Hukumnama, why no objection wa