D.G.R. Patnaik, J. - (1.) THE instant writ application has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 16.8.1994, passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in Revenue Miscellaneous Appeal No. 199 of 1992 -93 and also the order dated 10.7.1992, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka in SC Case No. 154 of 1982 -83, whereby the order of settlement of the lands under reference in this case, which were settled by the respondent -Sub -Divisional Officer, Jamtaran in favour of the petitioners were cancelled.
(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that they are the Jamabandi Raiyats of Village Bara Rampur No. 5, Police Station -Nala, Sub - Division, Jamtara, District -Dumka and the Jarjiabandi bearing No. 72 of the said village stands recorded in the name of the petitioners' grand -father Yadav All. The "petitioners are in cultivating possession over the land bearing plot Nos. 475, 476, 478 and 480. The land within Plot No. 501, which is surrounded by the jamabandi Plot Nos. 475, 476, 478, 479 and 480 stands recorded in the Anabadi Parcha No. 26 as Jhunti Junlge. On the ground that the petitioners are the holders of the land measuring 1.34 acres only situated contiguous to the land under Plot No. 501, the petitioners had sought a preferential right to claim settlement of the land in Plot No. 501 of Village Bara Rampur and, accordingly, they filed a petition before the Sub -Divisional Officer, Jamtara seeking settlement of portion of the land in Plot No. 501 situated in the said village in terms of the provisions of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act. After registering the petition as settlement case No. 154 of 1982 -83, the Sub -divisional Officer called for a report from the Circle Officer and the objections, if any from the Forest Department and also from the 16 Annas Raiyats of Mauja Bara Rampur No. 5. The report submitted by the Circle Officer, indicated that the petitioners' claim for settlement of the petitioners' land in Plot No. 501 under Section 28 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949 was bona fide and, accordingly, the Circle Officer had recommended that 4.05 acres of land situated over the Anabadi Khata No. 26 of Plot No. 501 at Mauja Bara Rampur be settled with the petitioners at the rate of 3.50 paisa and other costs. Likewise, the District Forest Officer, Deoghar Division vide his letter dated 10.8.1983 had submitted his report stating, therein, that the land within Plot No. 501 situated in Village Bara Rampur No. 5 is outside the limits of forest and is not a reserved for forest and, therefore, he had no objection to the proposed settlement of the land in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners claim further that though notice was issued by the Sub -divisional Officer in the settlement case but the 16 Anas Raiyats of the village did not raise any objection before the Sub -divisional Officer to the proposed settlement of the said land in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, by order dated 28.9.1993, the Sub -divisional Officer recorded settlement of 4.05 acres of land within Plot No. 501 in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter reclaimed a major portion of the land settled with them and construed tanks for irrigation purposes and for fishery and also constructed a house thereon and on the remaining portion of the land, they have been growing Bari crops. Furthermore, they were regularly paying rent to the State in respect of the land settled with them. The further case of the petitioners is that in the year 1989, an objection was raised by the Additional Collector, Dumka before the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, stating that the settlement of the land in favour of the petitioners was made in violation of the provisions of Section 28 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949. The Deputy Commissioner in his turn by his order dated 31.10.1991 called upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the settlement of the land made in their favour be not cancelled and despite the show cause replies filed by the petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 10.7.1992 cancelled the Sub -divisional Officer's order dated 28.9.1993, passed in Settlement Case No. 154 of 1982 -83. Against the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Santhal Parganas Division, Dumka. In the appeal registered as Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 199 of 1992 -93, the petitioners had raised several grounds in support of their prayer for setting aside the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner. However, by impugned order dated 16.8.1994, the Commissioner, Santhal Paraganas Division, Dumka dismissed the appeal.
(3.) THE petitioners have assailed the impugned orders as being bad on the points of law. Mr. Subhro Sanyal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would argue that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner does not indicate as to under what provisions of law was such order passed. Learned counsel argues that the provisions of Section 59 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949 is not applicable in the instant case since admittedly, no appeal was preferred against the order of settlement within the prescribed period of limitation and furthermore, the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner does not indicate the grounds of satisfaction for interfering with the order of settlement of the land made in favour of the petitioners. Learned counsel would emphasize further that the petitioners were well -qualified for claiming settlement of the land as per the provisions of Section 28 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949 on considering the fact that the petitioners' claim of settlement of land was found bona fide by the Circle Officer and the fact that the Forester also had declared that the land does not fall within the limits of the forest area and further in view of the fact that the 16 Anas Raiyats of the village had not raised any objection to the settlement, and on being satisfied, the Sub -Divisional Officer, made the order of settlement in favour of the petitioners and there can be no reasonable and valid ground for cancelling the settlement of the land made in favour of the petitioners. Learned counsel would further argue that the recommendation of the Additional Collector for cancellation of the settlement was mala fide and with oblique motives and on imaginary grounds and the Deputy Commissioner had grossly erred in adopting the recommendations of the Additional Collector and likewise the appellate authority had also grossly erred in adopting the ground recorded by the Deputy Commissioner without making any discussions on the relevant issues involved in the case.;