JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:—

“For issuance of an appropriate writ (s)/order (s) and/or direction (s) for quashing the order dated 16.07.11 passed by Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Division, Dumka in Rev. Misc. Appeal No. 101/1988-1989, whereby and whereunder the Learned Commissioner has purported to direct that the necessary correction in the Record of Right be made in the name of the Government.

AND

For issuance of further writ/order/direction that till the competent authority decide the heirship of Champa Baithain by the succession application filed on behalf of the respondents under Indian Succession Act.

AND

For issuance of further writ/order/direction to stay the operation of the impugned order dated 16.07.2011 (Annexure-3) till the disposal of the instant writ application.

AND

For issuance of further writ/order/direction that till the matter is decided by this Hon'ble Court, the respondents be restrained from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over Plot No. 49 of Khata No. 6, Thana No. 33 of Village Kurma, P.S. Saraiyahat, District Dumka.”

Arguments of the Petitioners.

3. It is the specific case of the petitioners that Jamabandi No. 4 of Mouza Kurma, Kasba Kurma, was recorded in the name of Champa Baithain and Tetri Baithain in Ganzert's settlement. Under the provisions of Clause 12 of the Record of Rights, the Pradhan was authorized to make settlement of land of any raiyat who died without any issue. It is further case of the petitioners that under Clause 12 of the Record of Rights, as per the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Manual, 1911, there is no prohibition of settlement of land by Pradhan.

4. It is further case of the petitioners that Ganpati Mandal was the Pradhan of Mouza Kurma. The said Pradhan found that the recorded raiyat namely Champa Baithain and Tetri Baithain had died issueless and the land remained abandoned. Further, nobody was claiming to inherit the property after their death. The Pradhan Ganpati Mandal made a settlement in favour of Tetri Mandlain in the year 1941 who was his wife and also issued settlement paper. After the settlement, Tetri Mandlain came in possession and started cultivating the land. In support of the aforesaid submission, the petitioners have annexed a Photocopy of the record of rights as Annexure-1.

5. Further facts are that on or about 1986, after more than 45 years of settlement in favour of Tetri Mandlain by the Pradhan of the village, an objection was filed by the private respondent claiming to be the successors of the original recorded tenant and thereby claiming the property involved in this case. The said objection was registered as Fauti Case No. 3 of 1986 in the court of Assistant Settlement Officer at Dumka and it was found that the property involved in this case was running in the record of rights in Jamabandi in the name of Tetri Mandlain, widow of Ganpati Mandal. Consequently, Tetri Mandlain was made opposite party. The Assistant Settlement Officer also issued notice to invite objection from 16 annas raiyat, Mukhiya and Anchal Adhikari of the said Mouza and upon notice, the 16 anna raiyat made statement and admitted before the Settlement Officer that original recorded raiyat, Champa Baithain and Tetri Baithain had died issueless and after death of recorded raiyat, the Pradhan had settled the land with Tetri Mandlain and since the date of raiyati settlement on 09.01.1941, she has been in possession of the land involved in this case. Upon appearance, Tetri Mandlain produced the patta and the Pradhani receipts issued by the then Pradhan as back as in the year 1941, 1945, 1949, 1953 and 1955.

6. Thereafter the case was transferred from the Assistant Settlement Officer to the court of Charge Officer, who passed an order dated 09.05.88 and dismissed the object