1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel appearing for the private respondents (Respondents No. 4 to 14).

2. This application is being disposed of with the consent of the parties at this stage.

3. Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 24.4.2002, passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Araria in Appeal Case No. 77/2001-02, as contained in Annexure- 2, whereby he had set aside the order dated 19.12.2000, passed by the Anchal Adhikari, Kursakanta, as contained in Annexure-1, declaring that the petitioner had acquired a raiyati right under Section 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority has set aside the order passed by the Anchal Adhikari concerned chiefly on the ground that as per the law laid down in Kusumlal Mallah Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., [1996 (2) PLJR 339], the claimant, before making a claium under Section 48D of the Act should have taken steps for initiation and thereafter should have succeeded in a proceeding under Section 48E of the Act. It is submitted that the aforesaid view expressed by a single Judge of this Court was overruled in a subsequent decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Dilip Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & ors., [2003 (2) PLJR 211]. In the aforesaid decision, the Division Bench has held that the earlier view taken by the learned Single Judge in the case of Kusumlal Mallah (supra) that without any adjudication of the under raiyats status, under section 48E, application under sectiuon 48D will not be maintainable, cannot be said to be a correct law on the point as both of the provisions of law lie in separate compartments having little nexus with each other. It is further submitted that petitioner was each other. It is further submitted that petitioner was found in possession and his father was recorded sikmidar and, as sum, on the ground of custom prevalent in the area, the Anchal Adhikari had rightly declared that the petitioner has acquired the status of a raiyat on the strength of being occupancy raiyats.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents fairly admitted that the law laid down in Kusumlal Mallah (supra) was overruled by a Division Bench of this Court in Dilip Goswami (supra). However, it is contended that at the time of passing the order, as contained in Annexure-2, that was the law in that context. That apart, it has also been urged that the fact that the father of the petitioner was a sikmidar was controverted before the original authority, but without considering such averments raised on behalf of the opposite parties therein, the original authority had come to the conclusion that since the father of the petitioner was a recorded sikmidar, thus, the petitioner has also acquired the right under Section 48D of the Act. It has been further contended that even if it is assumed that the father of the petitioner was a sikmidar, again, that cannot be a ground available for the petitioner to claim that he also became a sikmidar. The Anchal Adhikari concerned had not recorded any finding as to when the father of the petitioner died leaving behind how many heirs and legal rpresentatives, and if there was more than one heir, then how the petitioner alone could have claimed the sikmi raiyats etc. It is also not recorded that since when the petitioner was coming in possession of the land under the raiyats after the death of his father and what was the rent being paid by him to the recorded tenant. Further contention is that the original sikmidar himself had never claimed his right under Section 48D of the Act and it is the petitioner only, who after his death, was claiming such right, therefore, it was required that the finding should have been recorded on each and every ground, as aforesaid. That apart, there is no discussion at all as to how the Anchal Adhikari concerned had c