Amareshwar Sahay, J:

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order contained in Annexure-5 dated 20.4.2001 passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, allowing the appeal filed by Khirodhar Mahto i.e. respondent no.6 and others against the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaaribagh, in Misc. Case No. 5 of 1995-96 dated 13.06.1998.

The order contained in Annexure-6 passed by the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh dated 11.2.2002 is also under challenge in this writ application, whereby the Commissioner has affirmed the order passed by the Additional Collector contained in Annexure-5 and dismissed the revision filed by the present writ petitioners.

3. Without going into the details of the facts of the case, suffice is to say that the disputed land appertains to portions of khata nos.31, 41, 42,44 and 45 and the writ petitioners claim the same on the basis of purchase by registered deed. According to them the aforesaid lands were settled in the year 1925 by the ex-land lord and they also purchased land of Khewat no. 15/4 plot nos. 11,227,292,295 and 304 area 2.85 Acres by registered deed of sale in the year 1934. Subsequently on 21.11.1980 plot nos. 309 and 56 of khata nos. 44 and 45 area 0.48 decimals were also purchased by registered deed of sale.

4. On the other hand, the claims of the private respondents are that Khewat nos. 15/1, 15/2, 15/3 were prepared in the names of their ancestors and their names were also recorded in the cadastral survey records of right. They were coming in possession of the lands in question since the life time of their ancestors.

5. It appears that an application for fixation of rent with respect to the lands in question was filed by Khirodhar Mahto and others i.e. private respondents herein, before the Circle Officer, Ichak, in the year 1995, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 36 of 1994-95. The Circle Officer, Ichak by his order dated 3.5.1995, after considering the claims of both the parties, rejected the prayer of the claimants/ private respondents herein, on the ground that their names were recorded in the record of right on the basis of Thikha taken by their ancestors from the ex-land lord for a fixed period of 18 years and after expiry of the said period of 18 years the land under Thikha were taken back by the ex-land lord and thereafter the same were settled and sold with the opposite parties i.e. the writ petitioners herein.

6. The private respondents therafter filed an appeal before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaribagh, against the said order of the Circle Officer, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 5 of 1995-96. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, by his detailed order dated 13.6.1998 as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the Circle Officer, by observing that if so advised, the applicants may approach the competent Court of Civil Court. Against this order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, private respondents Khirodhar Mahto and others filed a revision before the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, which was registered as Misc. Revision No. 3 of 1998.

7. The Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, by his order dated 20.4.2001, contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition, allowed the revision application and set aside the orders passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector (Annexure-4) as well as the Circle Officer, Ichak. Thereafter, it appears that these writ petitioners preferred a revision before the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh, which was registered as Zamabandi Cancellation Revision No. 42 of 2001. The Commissioner by the impugned order dated 11.2.2002 contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition, has dismissed the revision application filed by the writ petitioners.

8. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the writ petitioners have raised various points to challenge the orders p