JUDGMENT :

1. Heard, learned counsel, Mr. Gaurav Abhishek on the instruction of learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Shray Mishra, learned senior counsel, Mr. Jay Prakash Jha assisted by learned counsel for the private respondents, Mr. Aishwarya Prakash and learned counsel for the respondent/State, Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, A.C. to Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II.

2. The petitioners namely, (1) Md. Samim Akhar, son of Late Abdul Mannan, (2) Md. Arsad Hussain, son of Late Abdul Samad, (3) Jiafatur Rahman, son of Late Nasudate Ali, (4) Md. Mahmud Alam Rizvi, son of Late Mustakin Ali, (5) Yusuf, son of Abdul Subhan, (6) Abdul Rahman, son of Late Abdul Sayeed, (7) Rajaul Rahman, son of Late Sakhwat Rahman and (8) Md. Haider Ali, son of Late Hazi Ahmad Gaffur, all resident of Village – Panchrukhi, P.S. -Godda Muffasil, Sub Division Godda, District – Godda, are the writ petitioners before this Court.

3. The petitioners have claimed that they are the successor of the original writ petitioners, who are the legal heirs of last Pradhan Lakhi Mian. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition against the order of the revenue authority i.e. order dated 08.01.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division at Dumka in Rev. Misc. Appeal Case No. 20/2003-04, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected and also consequently set aside the order dated 12.05.2003 passed by Additional Collector, Godda in Rev. Misc. Case No. 1/1998-99.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Gaurav Abhishek has submitted that the finding recorded by the Commissioner is recorded at page71 (Annexure -4) of the writ petition, where on the basis of record, the Commissioner has held that the tanks in question are recorded as jamabandi tanks of the appellants in revenue record and on this point, there is no serious contest, but the petitioners who are the legal heirs of recorded tenant are aggrieved by the part of the order, whereby the learned Commissioner has affirmed the order of the Additional Collector, that right to growing fish in the tanks have not been recorded anywhere and the whole dispute arose on this account only, which is at point no. (2) of the order passed by the Commissioner and so far the right of irrigation albeit to a limited extent, is already proved to have been granted to the raiyats of the village and that is what has been ordered by the lower court as held by the learned Commissioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the revenue authority has passed an order, whereby the title of the petitioners have been changed and touched, which was never a dispute before the learned Commissioner nor revenue authority has such power/jurisdiction to adjudicate the title.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Gaurav Abhishek has submitted that in the earlier settlement known as Mc. Phersons's Settlement, the lands of Plot No. 21, 104, 193 and 582 recorded as tank/pokhra of Jamabandi No. 55 of Mouza – Panchrukhi and the raiyats were shown as “Pradhan Ka Jote” recorded in the name of ancestors of the petitioners namely, Darbari Mian, Niyamat Mian, Imamali Mian, Sahmat Mian and Husaini Mian, all sons of Late Lakhi Mian, area comprises of 18 acres 78 decimals.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Gaurav Abhishek has submitted that during Ganzter's Settlement, this land was considered under Jamabandi No. 8, bearing Plot nos. 53, 207, 297 and 727 of Mouza – Parchrukhi recorded in the names of Usman Mian, Abdul Gani Mian, Abdul Rashid Mian, all sons of Darbari Mian, Ali Murtaza, son of Suleman Mian, Niyamat Mian, Imam Mian, Sahmat Mian and Hussaini Mian, all sons of Lakhi Mian, who were ancestors of the writ petitioners. There is no dispute with regard to the same nor there is any dispute with regard to Annexure-1, where the genealogy of Lakhi Mian has been given.

8. The petitioners are only aggrieved with part of the order particularly point no. (2), whereby the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Divi