POONAM SRIVASTAV, J. -The two writ petitions are heard together and decided by this common judgment as the controversy involved is one and the same.

2.. In W.P.(C) No. 1981 of 2003, the order passed under challenge is dated 5.8.2002 passed by Respondent No. 5Assistant Settlement Officer, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum, in Case No. 264 of 200102 under Section 90 of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act (Annexure-7 to the writ petition).

3. W.P.(C) No. 6816 of 2005 is the consequential letter' issued, pursuant to the aforesaid order, vide letter No. 305/Ra dated 5.9.2005, by the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand to the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum (Annexure-1) and letter No. 5/Sa. Bhu. Pu. Singh-54/05-3553/Ra dated 27.10.2005 from the Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand to the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum and also letter No. 51 Sa.Bhu.Pu.Singh-54/05-3650/Ra dated 10.11.2005 (Annexure-3) and General Notice dated 19.11.2005 (Annexure-4) whereby the authorities of the respondent-State are bent upon releasing the R.S. Plot Nos.1566, 1567, 1568, 1569, 1570 and 1572, Khata No. 40 in Mauza-Khuntadih measuring an area of 5.26 acres, which stand statutorily leased to the petitioner, treating the said land to be raiyati land and allotting, the same in favour of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

4. Heard Shri Binod Kanth, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. G.M. Mishra and Mr. Umesh Mishra, Advocates on behalf of the petitioner-M/s Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., Shri V. Shivnath, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Respondent Nos. 5 & 6, Shri V.K. Prasad, S.C. (L&C) on behalf of the State and Shri Rohit Roy, Advocate on behalf of Respondent No.8.

5. The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its office and factory at Jamshedpur in the district of East Singhbhum. 15725 acres of land was acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the then Provincial Government by two deeds of Conveyance for establishing Iron & Steel Co. and allied Companies and also a township. The entire land was not used immediately, therefore, approximately 3000 acres of land was unused and the said vacant land was permitted to be cultivated by local cultivators. The disputed plot Nos. (Old) 1566, 1567, 1568, 1569, 1570 and 1572 of Khata No. 40 at Village Khuntadih were given to one Bengal Kumar in the year 1934-37. The said Bengal Kumar started cultivating 5.26 acres of land and consequently his fame came to be recorded in the record of rights as a tenant.

6. Submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the aforesaid land in question was taken over by the Tata Steel after initiating a proceeding under Section 50 of the C.N.T. Act. The petitioners were delivered possession on 24.6.1944. Subsequently, the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'BLR Act') was enacted and interest of all the intermediaries vested in the State which became sole landlord. Claim of the petitioner is that at the time when the BLR Act came into effect from 1.1.1956, petitioners were in peaceful possession, but on the advent of the Act, the entire land vests in the State. Section 2B of the BLR Act was enacted in the year 1961. This was challenged before the Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India and the Apex Court granted a stay which continued for a period of 11 years. However, subsequently, the petitioner withdrew tile writ petition on 16.8.1982. Section 2B of the BLR Act was deleted in the year 1972 and Sections 70 and 7E were incorporated and, thus, the petitioner's contention is that they became the settlee. Provisions of Sections 70 and 7E was amended by Act No. 17 of 1984 and thereafter, the petitioners were treated to be a deemed lessee under the State and the lease deed was executed for a period of 40 years. The period of lease commenced with effect from 1956. The proceedings under S