Narayan Roy, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners. However, no one appears on behalf of the respondents.

2. The orders as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Santhal Pargana and the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka are under challenge whereby and whereunder the order passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Jamtara as contained in Annexure-3 has been set aside.

3. It appears that the petitioners applied for settlement of wasteland under the provisions of Sec. 28 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The Sub-divisional Officer after making inquiry from the Circle Inspector settled the land in question with the petitioners one acre each in exercise of its power under Sec. 28 of the Act. The order passed by the Sub-divisional Officer was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka saying that the petitioners were not the jamabandi raiyats of the village, in question and, therefore, they were not entitled for settlement of the wasteland in their favour under Section 28 of the Act. The matter was heard in presence of the parties by the Deputy Commissioner and the Deput