By Court.-Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved against the dismissal of their writ petition vide order dated 23rd February, 2011 passed in W.P.(C) No. 6529 of 2003.

3. It will be appropriate to give facts in brief. The respondents are holding the Patta which is alleged to have been issued in the year 1984 but admittedly copies of those Pattas were not sent to the concerned authority as was required under Section 27 of the Santhal pargana Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 and after the death of the Pradhan, his daughter-in-law who was holding the post of Pradhan sent the copy of the Patta to the Sub-Divisional Officer who has taken note of this fact in his order-sheet dated 4.11.1995. The petitioners being aggrieved against the order dated 4.11.1995 approached the court of Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar by filing the Rev. Misc. Appeal No. 98/95-96. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 21.12.1996 held, that the sending of the copy of the Patta to the concerned authority after 11 years cannot be justified and, therefore, those Pattas could not have been given recognition. The Deputy Commissioner also took note of the stand of the village raiyats who wanted that the land may be kept for the village persons' utility purpose. Be that as it may, because of the non-compliance of Section 27 of the Act or 1949 as well as because of the delay in sending the copy of the• Patta to the authority concerned, the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 21.12.1996 set aside the order dated 4.11.1995.

4. Aggrieved against said order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 21.12.1996, appeal was preferred by the respondents before the Commissioner, Santhal pargana Division, Dumka. The concerned Commissioner vide order dated 9.8.2003, after observing that there is already sufficient Gochar land available in the village and also observed that it would have been appropriate to send the Patta in time to the concerned authority and though it has not been sent but on that count Patta cannot be set aside. The petitioners, aggrieved against tj1e order of the Commissioner dated 9.8.2003 preferred this writ petition which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 23.2.2011, hence this L.P.A.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Kailash Prasad Deo, vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge proceeded on absolutely wrong premises. The petitioners never claimed the ownership of the land in .question and that fact may have impressed the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the learned Single Judge observed that the petitioners are not the owner- of the land in question. It is submitted that, for claiming any right over the village land, it is not necessary that one should claim ownership of the property or even exclusive right to possess the land. It is also submitted that, then the learned Single Judge committed serious error by observing that the Patta was given in the year 1984 whereas the objection was raised in the year 1996. The contention of the writ petitioners before the writ court was that the Patta was never issued in the year 1984 but it was created and was sent in the year 1996, therefore, the alleged Patta was never in existence. Then the learned Single Judge has observed that the petitioners are unable to point out how Section 28 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act is applicable whereas this is an admitted fact that the land was a waste land for which Patta was given to the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the land in question is a village utility land and in this case in face no Patta was issued in the year 1984 and the daughter-in-law of the deceased Pradhan who was Pradhan in the year 1996, had no authority to send the letter to the concerned authority or the copy of the Patta after a de1ay of 11 years. It is submitted that the copies of Patta shall be prepared in four copies and one copy shall be given the Raiyat concerned, o