U.P. Singh, J.

1. This application is directed against the order of the Special Officer,. Bihar Scheduled Area Regulation, under section 71AA of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act (Annexure 1). On appeal, the order of the Special Officer restoring the land to respondent no, 5 was affirmed by the Additional District Magistrate (sic). The revision preferred before the Commissioner also remained unsuccessful. The facts are these Respondent no. 5 is the grandson of one Jiwan Roy. It is alleged that on 23.4.1940, the recorded tenant, Guru Munda, surrendered plot no. 1640 to the ex-landlord by means of a registered deed. The said Jiwan Roy, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, took settlement on 1.7.1940 under a sada Hukumnama. Rest of the 15 plots of khata no. 22 were also surrendered on 20.7.1951 and the said Jiwan Roy, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, took settlement of those plots on 29.5.1951. The total area of the 16 plots of khata no. 22 is 3.36 acres. The petitioner claimed that he has been in possession of the land and has also converted a portion of the land in to a tank.

2. The case of the respondent no. 5 was that there was a triangular arrangement between the ex-landlord, the tenant and the settlee, Jiwan Roy. The collusive nature of the transaction was alleged on the ground that plot no. 1640, one of the plots out of the 16 plots in question alleged to have been surrendered on 23.4.1940 was re-surrenderd on 27.2.1951 along with 15 others plots. Admittedly, within three months from the date of the said surrender, Jiwan Roy, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, took settlement on 29.5.1951. The surrender and the settlement were so approximate in time that it could be regarded as one and the same transaction. Admittedly, no permission of the Deputy Commissioner as required under section 46 of thewas obtained for surrender of the land in the year 1951.

3. All the three courts below rejected the claims of the petitioner and held that, of course, prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner was necessary before the plots in question were surrendered in the year 1951. It was not explained by the petitioner as to how one of the plots, namely, plot no. 1640, was surrenderd twice, both in the year 1940 and 1951. Admittedly, the settlement was made within three months of the surrender. The permission of the Deputy Commissioner was also not obtained in 1951, These findings of fact are conclusive and no infirmity has been pointed out to dislodge these concurrent findings of fact. In the facts of the case, admittedly, 15 plots out of 16 plots were surrendered in the year 1951. Plot no. 1640 was also resurrerdered in the year 1951. The surrender of plot no 1640 Made twice in the year 1940 and 1951, in the absence of any explanation whatsoever, makes the transaction doubtful. The petitioner has failed to submit any explanation. The entire land was surrendered in 1951, plot no. 1640 was also resurrendered without obtaining the permission of the Deputy Commissioner as required under section 46 of the. Thus, the main object behind the surrender and settlement of the land was to by-pass the statutory provisions of section 46 of the. Therefore, the transaction became intrinsically invalid. It is well settled that the policy of the is not to be defeated by an ingenious device. The policy of the legislature in enacting section 46 of theis to secure to the tenants inhabiting the area to which the Chotanagpur Tenancy Apt applies, their rights in their occupancy holdings and to protect them. On the facts undoubtedly, the device was to circumvent and by-pass the statutory provisions of section 46 of the Act. The transaction was, therefore, invalid and judicial recognition of fraudulent contravention of section 46 of thecannot be granted. No other point was raised for consideration. The petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.