AJIT KUMAR SINHA,J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ / order / direction for quashing the ex -parte original order dated 28.11.1988 (Annexure -1) passed by Respondent No. 3 whereby and whereunder the Respondents, directed for restoration of the lands under proceeding in the purported exercise of power under Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act without any application of mind and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner of filing her show -cause and contesting the proceeding merely on the ground of non -appearance by relying upon the collusive report of the Peon as also for quashing the appellate order dated 26.12.1991 (Annexure -4) and the revisional order dated 18.5.1999 (Annexure -5) confirming the said ex -parte order, although the petitioner has acquired the properties in question after grating of due permission by the Deputy Commissioner, and therefore, there was no violation of the provision of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act and further although the petitioner's father was recorded as Sikmidar in the revisional survey khatiyan prepared almost 70 years ago and therefore, the claim of restoration was hopelessly barred by limitation.
(2.) THE facts in brief are set out as under: A proceeding under Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act was initiated by Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 against the petitioner for restoration of lands situated at plot No. 3799 under Khata No. 210 of Mouza - Argora, measuring 86 decimals. The said proceeding was registered as S.A.R. Case No. 461/86 -87 in the court of Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi. The petitioner refused to accept the notice and the proceedings were held ex -parte vide order dated 28.11.1988 and petition for restoration filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were allowed. The petitioner challenged the same before the Additional Collector, Ranchi, vide Misc. Case No. 146R8 (II) 1988 -89. The Appellate Authority vide its order dated 26.12.1991 dismissed the appeal holding that since the name of the father of the petitioner was recorded as non -raiyat his claim over the land becomes illegal beyond five years. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dated 26.12.1991 the petitioner preferred a revision before the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi being S.A.R. Revision No. 47/92. The Revisional Authority dismissed the same vide order dated 18.5.1999 which is sought to be challenged in the present writ petition. The main contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Indrajeet Sinha, is that the ex -parte order passed by the Special Officer was illegal and it failed to follow the mandate of Rule 13 and 14 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Rules before conducting the proceeding ex -parte and thus it had committed a manifest error of law.
(3.) THE second contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that possession of the father of the petitioner over the land in question continued since 1935 and thus after a lapse of a period of five years from which the father of the petitioner had been put in possession as a non -raiyat, making possession of the father of the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner's possession over the land in question hostile and thus no order of restoration under Section 71A of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act could have been passed after lapse of such a long period of time.;