Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - (1.) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the order dated 16.01.2019 passed in SAR Revision No.04 of 2018 by the Divisional Commissioner Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division, Chaibasa, is under challenge whereby and whereunder the order passed in Schedule Area Regulation Appeal No.07 of 2013-14 as also filed in SAR Appeal has been reversed and the restoration application filed under Section 71-A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act has been held to be barred by limitation since the said application has been filed after lapse of the period of 30 years.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he being a tribal and the land in question has been recorded in the records of rights in his favour but the same has been transferred in the name of the private respondents without following the provision of law as stipulated under the provision of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, and therefore, an application under Section 71-A of the CNT Act, 1908 has been filed for restoration of the said land since the land has been transferred in violation of the provision of Section 46 of the aforesaid Act where there is mandatory requirement of transfer with the permission of the Deputy Commissioner. He further submits that since the private respondents are not a tribal and therefore, in any case, it cannot be transferred even after the permission having been granted under the provision of Section 46 because there is complete embargo in transfer of land from the tribal to the non-tribal under the provision of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act.
(3.) When the application under Section 71-A of the Act, 1908 has been filed, the Scheduled Area Regulation Officer has allowed the same in favour of the petitioner which has been affirmed by the appellate authority but against which the private respondents have filed an application before the revisional authority under the provision of Section 217 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 wherein the order passed by the Scheduled Area Regulation Officer as also the Appellate Authority i.e., the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District has been reversed holding therein that the proceeding being barred by the limitation since the application under Section 71-A of the Act, 1908 has been filed after lapse of the period of 30 years. The said order has been assailed in the instant writ petition on the ground that since there is complete embargo in transfer of the land, therefore, the Revisional Authority ought not to have gone into the technicality rather the spirit and intent of the Act was to be appreciated but instead of doing so, merely on the ground of limitation of 30 years, the Revision petition has been allowed setting aside the order passed by the original as well as appellate authority, therefore, the same is not sustainable. The learned counsel appearing for the State-respondent has submitted that there is no error in the order passed by the Revisional Authority. He submits that although the provision of the CNT Act has been enacted in order to look after the interest of the people living in the scheduled area in whose name the land has been recorded in the records of right, save and except, permission being accorded by the Deputy Commissioner under the provision of Section 46 of the Act, 1908 but the question herein but application for restoration in pursuance to the provision made under Section 71-A of the Act, 1908 needs to be filed within the period of limitation i.e., 30 years but admittedly, herein the petitioner has filed the application for restoration after lapse of more than a period of 30 years, therefore, the Revisional Authority, after appreciating that aspect of the matter, has set aside the order passed by the Original as well as the Appellate Authority, hence, there is no infirmity in the order.;