ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Ayush Aditya, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. Nobody appears on behalf of the private respondent no. 5.

4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

“For quashing the revisional order dated 13.12.2010 (Annexure-3) passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi (Respondent No. 2) in S.A.R. Revision No. 5/2007 and the appellate order dated 7.9.2006 (Annexure-2) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi (Respondent No. 3) in S.A.R. Appeal No. 86R15/97-98 whereby and whereunder the restoration petition filed by the private Respondent No. 5 has been allowed the lands have been ordered to restored in favour of the Respondent No. 5.”

5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the application under Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act was filed by the private respondent for restoration of 2.09 acres of land pertaining to R.S. Plot No. 95 under Khata No. 80 of village Semra, P.O. and P.S. Itki, District Ranchi against Kadir Mian, (father of the present petitioners) which was numbered as S.A.R. Case No. 98/1992-93 in the court of Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi.

6. A show cause notice was filed by the father of the petitioners and it was contended that father of the petitioners was in possession of the property by virtue of Hukumnama of the year 1938 which was although a non registered document but was coupled with rent receipts issued by the zamindar and also by mutation carried on in the records of the State After vesting of zamindari.

7. He also submits that it was found that the property involved in this case is ‘Bakast Bhuinhari’ and is governed by Section 48 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 wherein limitation of 12 years was initially provided and was extended to 30 years by virtue of amendment made in section 71A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act,1908 w.e.f. 01.09.1986. He submits that after considering the show cause reply filed by the father of the petitioners, detailed order taking into consideration the various rent receipts etc. was passed by the S.A.R Officer and it has been held that the recorded tenants were dispossessed from the property at least as back as in the year 1966. In view of the rent receipts produced by the father of the petitioners before the said authority, it was held by the said authority that the recorded tenant was dispossessed from the property for more than 30 years and held that the proceeding under Section 71-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act was barred by law.

8. Against this, private respondents filed S.A.R. Appeal No. 86 R 15 /1997-98 and the appeal was allowed by cryptic order without taking into consideration the findings recorded by the S.A.R. Officer. At this stage he also submits that before the S.A.R. Officer, the petitioner had also relied upon one gift deed which was executed in favour of the daughter in connection with which the mutation was also carried on by the State in Mutation Case No. 23/1973-74 and mutation was done on 03.07.1973 by issuance of correction slip. He submits that this particular gift deed and the mutation indicates that the private respondents herein were dispossessed from the property 12 years prior to coming into force of the aforesaid amendment of 1986 and accordingly he submits that the proceeding for restoration of land was apparently time barred. This aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the appellate authority at all. Before the revisional court he submits that although the revisional court had taken note of the fact about the gift, but has rejected the claim being time barred by a cryptic order where neither the materials available on record has been discussed nor the order passed by the S.A.R. Officer and the reasons given therein has not been discussed.

9. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the order passed by the appellate court as well as