The Assistant Settlement Officer (Attestation) has the jurisdiction to reopen the record of rights and go into the merits of an exchange of land during the course of fresh settlement, and can set aside an exchange that is not valid and bonafide.

P.K.Deb, J.

1. Prayer has been made for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 1.5.1989 passed by the Respondent-Commissioner, Santhal Parganas Division, Dumka, in Revision Misc. case Appeal no.57 of 1983-84 as contained in Annexure-1 to this writ pettion.

2. By the impugned order the learned Commissioner has set aside the order dated 12.9.1983 passed by the Settlement Officer, Santhal Parganas, Dumka, in Settlement Objection Case no.17 of 1982 and thereby upheld the order of Assistant Settlement Officer (Attestation) passed on 28.8.1982 in Tasdik Parwana Case no.1 of Mouza Chotinan- Bahiyar as contained in Annexure-8 whereby Gantzers plot nos.192, 236, 127 and 238 were directed to be restored to the respondent no.6 and the same to be recorded in khata in the name of respondent no.6. The petitioners happen to be the successors of Triveni Sah who is hailed from the original ancestor Bisheshwar Sah, the geneoiogy of which is described in para-4 of the writ petition. Similarly, the respondent no.6 (He is now dead and his successors have been substituted) is the successor in interest of original ancestor Radha Ballabh Mukherjee. The admitted position remains that Gantzers plot nos.192, 236, 237 and 238 are comprised in Jamabandi no. 45 P.S. Ramgarh now Hansdihia within subdivision and district, Dumka, and those were recorded in the name of original tenant Radha Ballabh Mukherjee, the grand-father of respondent no.6. Radha Ballabh Mukherjee died leaving behind two sons Bhootnath Mukherjee and Bomkesh Mukherjee and both of them inherited the lands comprised in Jamabandi no.45 of village Chotinan- Bahiyar. Bomkesh died issueless and as such it is alleged that the respondent no.6 had inherited the whole of the property. During the life time of the father of respondent no.6 i.e. Bhootnath Mukherjee filed the petition before Panchayat of Chotinan- Bahiyar for exchange of his lands bearing plot nos.192, 236, 237 and 238 of Jamabandi no.45 with the lands bearing plot no.143 and 291 owned by Ganpat San and Nand Kishore Sah of the same village who happen to be the predecessors in interest of the petitioners. It is alleged that soch prayer of exchange was allowed in exchange case no.9 of 1933-34 after having a report from/the Panchayat and the Amin on the proposed exchange of land. According to the petitioner the report of the panchayat dated 17X1933 had given favourable opinion regarding the exchange. And on the basis of that exchange order of the S.D.O. Dumka, the predecessor of the petitioners came in possession over plot nos. 236 & 237 in Jamabandi No.45 comprising an area of 5 highas 5 Kathas 13 dhoors. Afterwards as per the petitioner a title suit was filed by the predecessor the plaintiffs and Trlveni Sah before the Court-Ill, Dumka, being Title Suit no.23 of 1939 against Bhootnath Mukherjee & ors. in which a compromise petition was filed before the Court by which plot no.192 comprising an area of 1 bigha 18 kathas 14 dhoors and plot no.238 comprising an area of 6 kathas 14 dhoors was ordered to be remained with Triveni Sah and plot no.136 having an area of 2 bighas 2 kathas remained with Bhooth Nath Mukherjee. Thus according to the plaintiff, on the basis of exchange and also on the basis of compromise decree the predecessor of the petitioners came in possession of plot no.192, 236, 237 and 238.

3. Dispute started during the present settlement which is stated in the bar to be continued now also. When respondent no.6 filed objection to the effect that although the above plots were recorded in Jamabandi no.45 in the name of respondent no.6 but the same were in illegal possession of the petitioners and as such Tasdik Parwana case no.1 of Mouza Chotinan-Bahiyar was registered before the Assistant Settlement Officer (Attestation). On hearing both the parties, the Assistant Settlement Officer (Attestation) vide order dated 28.8.1982 found the same exchange proceeding collusive and fraudulent for the reasons tha