By Court.- The petitioners, by way of filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 18.3.1991 (Annexure-1 to this petition) passed by the respondent Commissioner, Santhal Parganas at Dumka in Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 157/89-90 affirming the order dated 2.9.89 (Annexure-2 to this petition) passed by the respondent Deputy Commissioner, Dumka in Revenue Misc. Revision No. 15 of 1989-90.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the orders impugned as well as materials placed on record.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner, namely, Dwarika Nath Mandal had instituted Title Suit No.72/1991 in the Court of Subordinate Judge of Jamtara, Dumka, which is barred under Section 63 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949. After disposal of the said suit on the ground of jurisdiction, the petitioners preferred application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara, District-Dumka and the said application was disposed of vide its order dated 23.12.1987.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 23.12.1987, the respondent-16 Anna Raiyat preferred Revenue Misc. Revision being Revenue Misc. Revision No. 15 of 1988-89 before the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka and the said revision application was ordered to be allowed vide its order dated 2.9.1989 and thereto the order passed by the SDO dated 12.12.1987 has been set aside.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 2.9.1989, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Dumka being Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 157/1989-90, and the learned Commissioner, Dumka after affording opportunity of being heard to the parties, rejected the said appeal vide order dated 18.3.1991 and affirmed the order of the Dy. Commissioner, Dumka.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring the provision as contained in Section 35 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 submitted that the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Commissioner, Dumka being appellate authorities failed to take into consideration the provision as contained in Section 35 of the said Act. It is also submitted that the view taken by the Dy. Commissioner as well as the Commissioner, is contrary to the provision as contained in Section 35 of the said Act.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his submission has also referred to and relied upon Annexure-4 and Annexure-5 series i.e. Patta and rent receipts, respectively. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his case also referred to and relied upon the judgment reported in 1996(2) PLJR 656 (Anwar Ali and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors.).

8. The learned counsel appearing for the State Government by referring and justifying the orders passed by the appellate authority as well as revisional authority submitted that the said orders are well reasoned order and finding recorded by these two authorities are in consonance with the provision of law. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of 16 Anna Raiyat by referring the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner as well as Commissioner has submitted that the said orders have been passed after taking into consideration the facts as well as position of law and thereby the order passed by the S.D.O. has been set aside. It is further submitted that the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner is in consonance with the provision as contained in Section 35 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949. It is further submitted that the learned Commissioner has also endorsed the view, which has been taken by the learned Dy. Commissioner in Revenue Revision No. 15/1989-90. The learned counsel appearing for the 16 Anna Raiyat submitted that there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by the appellate as well as revisional authorities