JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent-State.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: –

“For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order dated 25th May, 2006 passed in S.A.R. Revision No. 5 of 2004 by the respondent No. 2, whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to allow the said revision filed by the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and remitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioner (respondent No. 3) for passing fresh orders on reconsidering the claim of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7;

AND/OR

Any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) as to Your Lordship may deem fit and appropriate for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.”

Arguments of the Petitioners

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the entire proceedings under Section 71A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act is hit by the principles of res judicata in view of the fact that two of the full brothers of the respondent nos. 6 and 7 had earlier participated in the proceedings under Section 71A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act in S.A.R. Case No. 267 of 1976-1977, in which, ultimately an amount of compensation was to be paid. Against the quantum of compensation, those two brothers had moved the appellate authority, but the appeal was dismissed for default. He submits that the present respondent nos. 6 and 7 filed another application for restoration of land under Section 71A vide petition dated 26.11.1996. He submits that the two brothers having moved earlier, the subsequent petition filed by the other two brothers is barred by res-judicata. The learned counsel submits that the principle of res judicata will apply in view of the fact that the two full brothers of the respondent nos. 6 and 7 had already participated in the earlier proceedings for restoration under Section 71A. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following judgments:

(i) (1996) 2 PLJR 719 para 3 and 5

(ii) (2002) 3 JLJR 126 para 4 and 6

(iii) (2007) 8 SCC 329 para 9, 17 & 18

4. The learned counsel has also submitted that the property involved in this case was sold by the father of the respondent nos. 6 and 7 to the father of the present petitioners vide registered sale deed dated 31.01.1963 and therefore the proceedings for restoration has been filed after 33 years 10 months and 23 days.

5. So far as limitation is concerned, the learned counsel has submitted that there was an amendment in Article 65 of the Limitation Act by virtue of Bihar Schedule Area Regulation, 1969 and 30-years limitation was prescribed and accordingly submits that the prescribed limitation for filing an application under Section 71A would be only 30 years and no more. He has further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments including the judgment passed in the case of Situ Sahu reported in (2004) 4 JCR 211 has held that though no limitation has been prescribed for filing an application under Section 71A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, but some reasonable time has to be there and has held that an application filed after about 40 years was beyond the reasonable time. Learned counsel has also submitted that the said judgment has been followed by this Court in CWJC No. 2022 of 2000 (R). He submits that the aforesaid amendment in Article 65 of the Limitation Act through Bihar Schedule Area Regulation, 1969 was not brought to the notice of Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding the aforesaid judgment.

Arguments of the respondent-State

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - State, on the other hand, has submitted that there is no question of applicability of res judicata in the present case, in as much as, the two brothers of the respondent nos. 6 and 7 had participated in the earlier proceedings and the matter regarding dispossession under Section 71A was not even decided on merit, rather it was disposed of on the basis of some kind of compromise between the petiti