- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.12.2008 passed in W.P.C. No. 84 of 2005 by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition by passing the following order: "Heard the parties. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.08.2002 contained in Annexure 10 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Godda decreeing the suit by declaring right, title and interest over the property in question and further declaring the possession of the petitioner who was defendant No. I in the said case to be illegal and the decree -holder was held to be entitled to the property in question. The petitioner has also challenged the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in an appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Godda (Annexure 10), dismissing the appeal as well as the order dated 6.12.2004 (Annexure 20) passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Parganas Division, Dumka dismissing the Second appeal filed by the petitioner. After hearing the parties and after going through the impugned orders, I find that all the three courts i.e. the original Court, the first appellate court as well as the second appellate Court elaborately considered the respective case of the parties and thereafter have arrived at the findings on facts on consideration of the evidence and materials on record. This court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution does not find any reason whatsoever to disturb the concurrent findings on facts arrived at by the three courts. Accordingly, having found no merit, this writ application is dismissed. 
(2.) MR . V. Shivnath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant drawn our attention to various annexures and the orders passed by the authorities and submitted that the court below including the learned Single Judge had committed error of law in rejecting the claim of the appellant. It appears that the suit filed by the plaintiff respondent being Title Suit No. 33 of 1993 was decreed. The respondent -appellant challenged the said decree by filing appeal before the Deputy Commissioner cum Settlement Officer, Dumka but the same was dismissed. The appellant then moved the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division by filing Second Appeal No. 101 of 2004. The Commissioner after re -appreciating the entire facts and evidence affirmed the finding recorded by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court. So far the claim of the appellant on the basis of Bhudan Patta is concerned, the commissioner held as under: "Next argument has been advanced by the defendant -appellant regarding his claim on the basis of Bhoodan Patta. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsels of both the parties in this regard. The alleged Bhoodan Patta is dt. 25.4.69. The plaintiffs stated that they have never donated the suit land at any time. The Bhoodan Patta dt. 25.5.84 is false and antedated. The confirmation of the Bhoodan case vide Bhoodan confirmation case No. 1/1986 -87 after over 17 years of actual donation of land/Danpatra is fraudulent, illegal and in gross violation of the provisions of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954. Further, it has been submitted that the defendant 1st party -appellant claimed the suit land earlier on the basis of Kurfa in Title suit no. 49/74 and title suit no. 62/75 marked exhibits in the suit. Therefore, Bhoodan patta is out and out false and concocted. However, it appears that D.C., Godda by an order dt. 4.9.02 passed in R.M.A. no. 3/2000 -2001 (Shashi Mahto and others Vrs. Jamuna Pd. Shah) after considering all the facts, documents and hearing the parties set aside the order dt. 25.1.2000 confirming the Bhoodan Patta of LRDC, Godda made exhibit in the lower court in the Title suit. Deputy Commissioner, Godda in his judgment elaborately discussed all the facts and documents in this regard by observing gross violation of provisions of The Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 and rules made thereunder. It is very important to note that the defendant -appellant claimed the suit land on the basis of Kurfa in 1975. Then, how it is possible for him to contend that the said land could be donated in Bhoodan in the year 1969. It is, thus, clear and the defendant -appellant in any view of the matter tried to grab the suit land taking the advantage of The Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954. The law does not recognize such act of fraud for grabbing the land by the defendant. It has also been contended on behalf of the plaintiffs -respondent 1st party that the appellant is not a Jamabandi raiyat of Mauza Jamua. He is a resident of Mouza Saroni. He is a big business man having large area of lands at different places. Since the Bhoodan Patta has already been cancelled by the D.C., Godda the defendant -appellant can not claim now on the basis of the said Bhoodan patta, so long order of cancellation of patta by the superior court is not set aside. The appellant filed Revenue Misc. Revision No. 21/2002 -03 in this court against the order dt. 4.9.02 of D.C. Godda passed in R.M.A. No. 3/2000 -01 (Shasi Mahato and others Vrs. Yamuna Pd. Shah) Setting aside the order dt 25.10.2000 of LRDC Godda in Bhoodan Confirmation case no. 1/86 -87 and cancelling the Bhoodan Patta dated 25.5.84. 1 heard both the parties in Revenue Misc. Revision No. 21/02 -03, perused the documents and impugned order and finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of D.C., Godda, I have rejected the revision petition filed by the appellant on 6.12.04. Thus, the claim of the appellant on the basis of the Bhoodan Patta does not stand in any view of the matter.  Having regard to the finding of facts recorded by the authorities, in our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge rightly held that the findings arrived at by the three courts cannot be interfered with.
(3.) WE , therefore, do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly, dismissed.;