Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 07.04.2004 (Annexure-2) passed in Appeal Case No. 36 of 2001-02 by the respondent Sub-Divisional Officer, Forbesganj reversing and setting aside the order dated 26.04.1997 (Annexure-1) passed in Case No. 15 of 1997-98 by the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Bhargama in exercise of his powers under Section 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 (in short “the B.T. Act”) declaring the petitioner as raiyat over the lands in question, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of the impugned appellate order.

3. The dispute in the present proceeding is with respect to plots of land bearing Kayami Khata no. 639, corresponding to Sikmi Khata No. 262, appertaining to plot No. 4173 area 17 decimals and Plot no. 4174 area 15 decimals, total area being 32 decimals, situate at village-Kusmaul, P.S. Bhargama, District- Araria (hereinafter referred to as “the lands in dispute” in the present order).

4. It is not in dispute that one Saryug Das, the father of the petitioner, was having his possession over the lands in dispute as the Sikmidar. In the recent revisional survey proceeding, aforesaid Saryug Das has been recorded as a Sikmidar with respect to the lands in dispute and, accordingly, survey khatian was prepared in his name. So far as the private respondents are concerned, their father Shukal Khatbe is said to have purchased the lands in dispute through a registered sale deed dated 21.12.1983.

5. The case of the petitioner is that after death of her father namely Saryug Das, she, being his heir and legal representative, has inherited the lands in dispute as sikmidar and, therefore, she became the occupancy under raiyat under the meaning of Sections 48C and 48 D of the B.T. Act. The petitioner, being an occupancy under-raiyat, filed a petition in prescribed form C raising her claim under Section 48D of the B.T. Act for conferring upon her the raiyati right with respect to the lands in dispute. On the basis of the petition filed by the petitioner, Case No. 15 of 1997-98 was registered by the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Bhargama, the competent authority under the B.T. Act. After holding an enquiry and following the procedure prescribed under the Rules framed under Section 48D of the B.T. Act, by an order dated 26.04.1997, as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, her claim under Section 48D of the B.T. Act was allowed and she was declared as raiyat in terms of Section 48D of the B.T. Act.

6. It appears that after delay of more than four years on 12.10.2001 the respondent no. 4 to 6 filed an appeal before the respondent Sub-Divisional Officer, Forbisganj, giving rise to Appeal Case No. 36 of 2001-02. The appeal preferred by the respondent no. 4 to 6 has been allowed by the impugned appellate order dated 07.04.2004 (Annexure-2) and the original order dated 26.04.1997 passed by the respondent Anchal Adhikari, Bhargama has been set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the petitioner, being the Sikmidar, has been so recorded in the recent revisional survey khatiyan and the petitioner inherited such right after death of her father. It is contended that the respondent Sub-Divisional Officer has set aside the original order passed by the respondent Anchal Adhikari merely on the ground that the petitioner has not acquired status of occupancy under raiyat despite the death of her father and, therefore, the order passed by the Anchal Adhikari was set aside. It is contended that sikmi right is an inheritable right, but not a transferable right and as such the impugned appellate order is not sustainable and is fit to be set aside.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 4 to 6 has opposed the prayer made in the present application and has supported the impugned appellate order passed by the respondent Sub-Divisional Officer. It is contended by the learned counsel