AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioners are aggrieved by the order contained in Annexure -5 dated 20.4.2001 passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, allowing the appeal filed by Khirodhar Mahto i.e. respondent no. 6 and others against the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaaribagh, in Misc. Case No. 5 of 1995 -96 dated 13.6.1998. The order contained in Annexure -6. passed by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh dated 11.2.2002 is also under challenge in this writ application, whereby the Commissioner has affirmed the order passed by the Additional Collector contained in Annexure -5 and dismissed the revision filed by the present writ petitioners. Without going into the details of the facts of the case, suffice is to say that the disputed land appertains to portions of Khata nos. 31, 41, 42, 44 and 45 and the writ petitioners claim the same on the basis of purchase by registered deed. According to them the aforesaid lands were settled jn the year 1925 by the ex -landlord and they also purchased land of Khewat no. 15/4 plot nos. 11, 227, 292, 295 and 304 area 2.85 Acres by registered deed of sale in the year 1934. Subsequently on 21.11.1980 plot nos. 309 and 56 of khata nos. 44 and 45 area 0.48 decimals were also purchased by registered deed of sale.
(3.) ON the other hand, the claims of the private respondents are that Khewat nos. 15/1,15/2,15/3 were prepared in the names of their ancestors and their names were also recorded in the cadastral survey records of right. They were coming in possession of the lands in question since the life time of their ancestors.;