D. K. Sen, CJ.

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of this Court dated the 11th december, 1987, passed in C. W. J. C. No.2348 of 1982.

2. The main point to be adjudicated in this appeal has been decided by a full Bench of this Court in Dhanji Singh V/s. State oj Bihar and other, reported in air 1979 Patna 259, and it appeared to us that this appeal could be disposed of at the stage of admission. Accordingly, we heard the learned Advocate for the appellants as also the learned Advocate for the private respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5.

3. The material facts and the proceeding, leading up to this appeal as appearing from the records, are inter alia, that one Jattu Uraon (since deceased)was prior to 1945 the owner of raiyati land in Mouza Godiyar Revenue Thana dhamdhaha measuring 1 acre 24 decimals under Khata No.94 and also other raiyati lands in Mouza Mateli Khamahand, Tola Ajh Okopa, measuring 1 acre 78 decimals under Khata No.324 as also 3 acres 9 decimals under Khata No.325.

4. Sometime in 1945 the said Jattu Uraon sold his raiyati interest in the said lands in favour of the respondent No.4, Murti Devi.

5. The case of the said Jattu Uraon was that there was an understanding between the vendor and purchaser that the vendor and his family will be the sikmidars in respect of the land sold. Though the said understanding was not recorded in the deed of sale, Jattu Uraon and his family continued to be Sikmidars in respect of the lands at all material times.

6. In the recent survey the "members of the family of Jattu Uraon have been recorded as Sikmidars in respect of the land in mouza Godiyar under Khata no.924 but such rights were not recorded in respect of lands in Mouza Mateli khamahand under Khata Nos.324 and 325.

7. Taking advantage of the aforesaid the said Murti Devi and her husband and son, Raghunath Bhagat and Mahendra Bhagat respectively, the respondents nos.3 and 5 to this appeal tried to interfere with the possession of Jattu Uraon in the said lands under Khata Nos.324 and 325.

8. Being aggrieved the said Jattu Uraon applied before the Special Deputy collector Land Reforms, the respondent No.2 before us, under Sec.48-E of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), inter alia, for enquiry and adjudication of the rights of Jattu Uraon as an under-raiyat.

9. The said application was entertained by the respondent No.2 and marked as Case No.206 of 1981-82. Notice was directed to be issued to the respondent No.4 and the said Jattu Uraon filed the names of "panches" in the proceedings.

10. The said application of Jattu Uraon was disposed of by the respondent no.2 by an order passed on the 7th November, 1981. "it was recorded in the said order that the applicant Jattu Uraon was absent on tha,t date but the, respon dent No.4, the opposite party, was present and had filed Hazri. It was recorded further that the respondent No.4 had contended that the claim of Jattu Uraon was without substance and should be dismissed. The respondent No.2 considered the documents, which had been filed by the parties in the proceeding.

11. The respondent No.2 noted that the Assistant Chakbandi Officer had issued a notice on the 27 the February, 1978, under Sec.10 of the Act where name of the opposite party was recorded as permanent tenure-holder. In the said notice the land in dispute had been mentioned.

12. The respondent No.2 also considered an affidavit of the Mukhiya of ajho Kopa Gram Panchayat where it was recorded that the respondent No.4 was in exclusive possession of the land in dispute for the purpose of cultivation.

13. The respondent No.2 also considered the police report dated the 19th September, 1981, where it was stated that the respondent No.4 was in actual possession of the land in dispute and the Jattu Uraon and others had attempted to obtain forcible possession of the said land. The office-in-charge concerned had recommended to the Su