SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.

1. Challenging Order dated 23.06.2004 in S.A.R. Case No. 24 of 2003, appellate order dated 08.06.2005 in S.A.R. Appeal No. 5 of 2004-05 and revisional order dated 21.02.2011 in S.A.R. Revision No. 41 of 2005, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The facts narrated in the writ petition are that, the land comprised in Khata No. 5, Plot No. 545, total area 0.75 acres and Plot No. 697, total area 0.48 acres was recorded in the name of one Basua Oraon who died leaving behind three sons namely Chanhas Bara, John Bara and Nelson Bara. In a mutual partition between the brothers, the land in question came in peaceful possession and occupation of John Bara who entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner. In Permission Case No. 128 of 1986-87, permission under Section 46 of CNT Act was given for sale of 0.16 decimal land in Khata No. 5, Plot No. 697. Subsequently, sale-deed dated 01.08.1995 was executed by the said John Bara conveying the land in question in favour of Birsa Oraon. He made application for mutation and after his name was mutated in the revenue records, he was granted rent receipts. The petitioners have taken electrical and telephone connection and they have been paying the bills regularly. The son of said John Bara namely, Mahavir Evanus Bara filed a restoration application under Section 71A of CNT Act which was registered as S.A.R. Case No. 24 of 2003 in the court of Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation, Gumla. The said application has been allowed vide order dated 23.06.2004 and the appeal as well as revision preferred by Birsa Oraon has been dismissed. In the above facts, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent nos. 5 and 6 stating that Birsa Oraon with malafide intention tried to grab the land which was not sold to him. In the proceeding of S.A.R. Case No. 24 of 2002-03 and S.A.R. Appeal No. 5 of 2004-05, Birsa Oraon did not produce any evidence as to his right over land comprised in Khata No. 5, Plot No. 545 and therefore, the courts below have rightly ordered restoration of the land comprised in Khata No. 5, Plot No. 545 which was illegally grabbed by Birsa Oraon.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in the application under Section 71A of CNT Act was disputed question of title. The permission under Section 46 of CNT Act granted to Birsa Oraon has not been challenged and therefore, there was not violation of Section 46 of CNT Act and on this ground alone, the S.A.R. Case No. 24 of 2002-03 was liable to be dismissed. Referring to order dated 16.04.1992 in S.A.R. Case No. 5 of 1990-91, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that previously Birsa Oraon filed application under Section 71A of CNT Act which was dismissed and therefore, S.A.R. Case No. 24 of 2002-03 was barred by resjudicata.

6. As against the above, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and submits that the respondent no. 5 has no grievance in so far as, 0.16 decimal land in Khata No. 5, Plot No. 697 which was transferred by the father of the respondent no. 5 in favour of Birsa Oraon through sale-deed dated 01.08.1995, is concerned. The claim of respondent no. 5 is with respect to about 30 decimal land in Khata No. 5 over Plot No. 545 which has been illegally grabbed by the petitioners. Trying to distinguish order dated 16.04.1992 in S.A.R. Case No. 5 of 1990-91, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 submits that the application under Section 71A of CNT Act filed by the respondent no. 5 was maintainable and it has rightly been allowed.

7. From the materials brought on record, I find that vide sale-deed dated 01.08.1995, land comprised in Khata No. 5, Plot No. 697, total area about 0.16 decimal was sold to Birsa Oraon by father of respondent no. 5 n