ORDER :

1. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 10.11.2009 passed in W.P. (C) No. 234 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has refused to interfere with order dated 28.04.2001 passed by Special Officer, Scheduled Area Regulation (SAR), Ranchi in SAR Case No. 139/1998-99, appended as Annexure 4 to the writ petition; order dated 03.06.2002 passed by appellate authority in SAR Appeal No. 27R/01-02, appended as Annexure 5 to the writ petition; and order dated 01.10.2002 passed by revisional authority in SAR No. 102/2002-2003, appended as Annexure 6 to the writ petition; by which the application filed by respondent no. 5 before original authority for restoration of land under Section 71A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred as to as ‘Act, 1908’) has been allowed with a direction to restore the land forthwith in favour of respondent no. 5.

2. The brief facts of the case, as per pleadings made in the writ petition, read as hereunder:

3. The appellants-writ petitioners are alleged to be the heirs and successors of their late elder brother-Ram Sati Yadav @ Ram Sati Gwala, who acquired lands in the year 1945 comprising an area of 91 decimals and 24 decimals appertaining to Plot No. 1492 and 1495 under Khata No. 46 in village Hinoo (total area 1.15 acres) and since acquisition Ram Sati Yadav continued to remain in possession of the property and thereafter his legal heirs and successors i.e., the present appellants-writ petitioners.

4. Subsequently, a dispute was raised between the original raiyat and said Ram Sati Yadav, as a result thereof, said Ram Sati Yadav filed a suit being Title Suit No. 26 of 1960 for declaration of right, title and interest over the land in question. The said suit ended in a compromise and thereby a compromise decree dated 29.02.1960 was passed wherein the defendant, the original raiyat, admitted the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land.

5. It is the case of the writ petitioners that after the aforesaid compromise decree passed in the said Title Suit No. 26 of 1960, said Ram Sati Yadav @ Ram Sati Gwala got his name mutated and regularly paid the rent with respect to said land and even constructed a pucca house and other structures thereupon.

6. It is further case of the writ petitioners-appellants that respondent no. 5-Sunil Oraon, claiming himself to be the legal heir and successor of khatiyani raiyat, filed an application before the Special Officer being SAR Case No. 139/1998-99 under Section 71A of the Act, 1908 for restoration of land of total area of 8 decimals of land, falling under his share, mainly on the ground that the land in question has been obtained by the Opposite Parties (writ petitioners-appellants) by means of fraud alleged to have taken place seven years ago from the date of filing of this application. The writ petitioners-appellants appeared before Special Officer and filed show cause. The Special Officer finally passed an order on 28.04.2001 whereby the possession of the petitioners over the land in question was held to be illegal and direction was passed for restoration of entire piece of land comprising an area of 1.15 acres.

7. Being aggrieved thereof, the writ petitioners-appellants preferred appeal before the appellate authority being SAR Appeal No. 27R/01-02, which was dismissed vide order dated 03.06.2002, against which, revision petition being SAR No. 102/2002-2003 was filed, which was also dismissed vide order dated 01.10.2002.

8. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the original authority, appellant authority and the revisional authority, the petitioners-appellants approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 234 of 2003, which was dismissed vide order dated 10.11.2009, refusing to interfere with the concurrent finding recorded by revenue authorities, which is the subject matter of instant intra-court ap