- (1.) CHALLENGE in this writ application is to the order dated 29.1.2004 (Annexure -4) passed by the Commissioner, Dumka in R.M.A. No. 151 of 1985 -86, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of Settlement Officer, Dumka dated 8.4.1985, was dismissed. The petitioner has also challenged the order of Settlement Officer dated 8.4.2005 (Annexure -3) whereby, the Settlement Officer, while accepting the report of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Dumka, had refused to declare the disputed lands as 'Fouti' and had proceeded to settle the lands in favour of the private respondents 4 to 6.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. The grounds of challenge, as advanced by the counsel for the petitioners, is that the concerned authorities of the respondents while passing the impugned orders, have failed to perform the statutory duty, as required under the law inasmuch as, without conducting any inquiry and without construing the evidences on record in proper perspective, have declared the lands in question as not available for settlement on the ground that it is not "Fouti".
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners would argue that the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer are contrary to the materials available on record. Learned counsel elaborates that though, the Settlement Officer has taken note of the petitioners' contention that the originally recorded raiyat having died issueless, the land was liable to be declared 'Fouti' and settled in favour of the petitioners and the further contention is that the genealogical table furnished by the private respondents in support of their claim of being the descendants of the originally recorded raiyat, is wrong, but has rejected the petitioners' contention on the purported ground that except the oral statements, the petitioners have not produced any document in support of their contentions. This, according to the learned counsel, is contrary to the record in view of the fact that the relevant documents namely, Khatiyan and other papers on which the petitioners had relied upon in support of their claim and in support of their pleadings for disputing the claim of the private respondents as incorrect, have not been adverted to or even considered. Learned counsel argues that the findings recorded by the Settlement Officer are therefore perverse since such findings have been arrived at without looking into the documents and other evidences brought on record and the Appellate Authority has merely endorsed the findings of the Settlement Officer without application of mind to the facts of the case and to the evidences on record.;