Virender Singh, J.

Challenging maintainability of the application for restoration under Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, the appellant writ petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as “petitioner”) approached the Writ Court in W.P.(C) No. 5494 of 2004 which stands dismissed vide impugned order dated 13.10.2004. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of restoration of possession to respondent no. 5 was a serious mistake committed by the SAR Court inasmuch as, the restoration application under Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act was filed on the ground of default of payment of rent against the husband of the petitioner. However, the aforesaid error was ignored by the Appellate as well as the Revisional Authority and the learned Writ Court summarily dismissed the writ petition. Contending that the petitioner had constructed house over the land in question and developed an orchard about 40 years prior to initiation of SAR Case No. 199091, it is contended that ignoring the fact that the application under Section 71A was filed much beyond the period of limitation, order of restoration has been passed which warrants interference by this Court.

4. Respondent No. 5 has chosen not to appear in the present proceeding.

5. The learned State counsel submits that the possession of the petitioner and/or her husband was in contravention of the provisions under the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act and the plea taken by the petitioner that she came in possession over the suit land by virtue of an agreement to sale executed in her favour would not validate the possession of the petitioner or her husband.

6. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it needs to be recorded that in the proceeding of SAR Case No. 8 of 199091 which was initiated for restoration of possession from the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner did not get herself impleaded. It further appears that the petitioner's husband never produced the alleged sale agreement in the proceeding of SAR Case No. 8 of 199091 and only after the order passed in SAR Case No. 8 of 199091 was setaside and the matter was remitted to the SAR Court, the petitioner took a plea that she came in possession over the land in question by virtue of a sale agreement.

7. Now, adverting to the plea that the proceeding, which was initiated on the ground of alleged default in payment of rent, could not have been under Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, the object behind Section 71A needs to be noticed. Section 71A is extracted below:

71A. “Power to restore possession to member of the Scheduled Tribes over land unlawfully transferred.– If at any time, it comes to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner that transfer of land belonging to a raiyat or a Mundari KhuntKattidar or a Bhuinhari who is a member of the Scheduled Tribes has taken place in contravention of Section 46 or Section 48 or Section 240 or any other provisions of this Act or by any fraudulent method, including decrees obtained in suit by fraud and collusion he may, after giving reasonable opportunity to the transfer, who is proposed to be evicted, to show cause and after making necessary inquiry in the matter, evict the transferee from such land without payment of compensation and restore it to the transferor or his heir, or, in case the transferor or his heir is not available or is not willing to agree to such restoration, resettle it with another Raiyat belonging to Scheduled Tribes according to the village custom for the disposal of an abandoned holding:

Provided that if the transferee has, within 30 years from the date of transfer, constructed any building or structure on such holding or portion thereof, the Deputy Commissioner shall, if the transferor is not willing to pay the value of the same, order the transferee to remove the sa