D.G.R.PATNAIK,J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is against the order of the learned single Judge whereby the writ application filed by the petitioners vide CWJC No. 3735 of 1986 was dismissed. Prayer in the writ application, as made by the petitioner, was that pursuant to the order dated 24th January, 1979 (Annexure -4) passed by the Sub - Divisional Officer, Dumka in R.E. Case No. 121/71 -72, the land under reference in this case was declared as Ferari (abandoned) land and direction was issued to settle the same with the landless Scheduled Tribe Jamabandi Raiyats.
(2.) A further prayer was made for quashing the order dated 10.7.1981 (Annexure -5) passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dumka whereby appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed and also for quashing the order dated 22/29.5.1986 (Annexure -6) passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Dumka was dismissed.
(3.) THE case of the petitioners in brief is that one Deep Narayan Lal Singh, father -in -law of the petitioner No. 1 was in possession of land under reference in this case and jamabandi was created in his name alongwith others, namely, Suraj Singh, Ganga Singh and Pratap Kumari. On the demise of the other co - sharers who died issueless, Deep Narayan Lal Singh remained as the only surviving claimant to the land. Since he was in police service and posted elsewhere, he had hired servants to cultivate the land and continued to remain in cultivating possession of the land. After the death of the said Deep Narayan Lal Singh, his son Haribilas Srivastava succeeded the land and continued to remain in cultivating possession of the land. Later, on the basis of an application filed by some rival claimants, the Sub - Divisional Officer initiated a proceeding and had passed the impugned order declaring the land as abandoned land. It is claimed by the petitioners that Sub - Divisional Officer, Dumka has no authority under the law to declare the land as abandoned land in view of the fact that the petitioners were in cultivating possession of the same. It was also claimed that since there was no question of any illegal transfer of land, the provisions of Section 20(5) of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act could not be applicable for exercise of any jurisdiction by the Sub -Divisional Officer. The petitioners had wanted to place reliance on the voters list in support of their claim that they are the residents of the village in question and also upon the report submitted by the Anchal Adhikari to confirm that they used to cultivate the land through hired servants.;