JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying, that, the order passed on the 30th March 1972 by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, be quashed with respect to plot no. 3025. It is further prayed, that a notice dated the 5th May 1972, given by the Circle officer, Sesai, be also quashed. 2. The relevant facts ate as follows. On the opinion of the Government pleader, Ranchi, to the effect, that, Sesai Bazar held over plot no. 3025 of Khata no. 114, and plot no. 3026 of khata no. 117 had vested in the State of Bihar under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, notices under Section 4 (g) of the Act were issued to the parties concerned to deliver possession of the said plots of land and a miscellaneous case was started, numbered as Miscellaneous Case no. 16 of 1963-64 in the Court of the Deputy Collector Incharge of Land Reforms, Gumla. The notices were challenged by the parties concerned and plot no. 3025 was claimed by Sri U. N. Mishra, as having been settled with him in raiyati settlement in the year 1995 Sambat. So far as plot no. 3026 was concerned, Sri Brij kishore Ram claimed the land as his raiyati land. Plot no. 3025 had been recorded in the record-of-rights as Ghairmazarua Malik Bazar Tanr and parti Kadim. Plot no. 3026 had been recorded in the record-of-rights as Ghairmazarua Majhihas Malik-parti kadim. Before the Deputy Collector incharge of Land Reforms, the claimant of plot no. 3025 had produced a sada Hukumnama dated the 1st March 1995 Sambat and some rent receipts. It may be mentioned, that, a few counterfoils of rent receipts had also been produced, on notice to the ex-landlord. On the materials that the Deputy Collector had before him, especially on a perusal of the Hukumnama, he came to the conclusion, that, the claimant of plot no. 3025 had obtained a raiyati settlement in 1995 Sambat, as was his case. With respect to plot no. On the materials that the Deputy Collector had before him, especially on a perusal of the Hukumnama, he came to the conclusion, that, the claimant of plot no. 3025 had obtained a raiyati settlement in 1995 Sambat, as was his case. With respect to plot no. 3026, the Deputy Collector stated, that Brij Kishore Ram had claimed that rent of this plot of land had been fixed in his name under section 6 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and, therefore, the State cannot take possession of this land under section 4 (g), unless the rent fixed is cancelled in revision or appeal by a competent court. In the result, the entire proceeding with respect to both the plots of land in question was dropped. Thereupon, the State of Bihar appealed to the court of appeal, which appeal has succeeded by the impugned order, dated the 30th March 1972. Allowing the appeal filed by the State of Bihar, the learned Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, directed the claimants of plots no. 3025 and 3026 to give up possession of the lands in question. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended, that, the approach of the learned Deputy Commissioner in dealing with the case concerning plot no. 3025 is erroneous in law. Our attention has been drawn to paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the impugned order where the learned Deputy Commissioner has dealt with an unregistered Hukumnama produced on behalf of the claimant of plot no. 3025. In paragraph 7 the appellate court stated, that, there was merit in the argument advanced by the appellant to the effect that, the raiyati settlement of non-agricultural land cannot be made by a sada Hukumnama and holding of the Bazar cannot be considered as use of land for agricultural purpose. Thereafter, the learned Deputy Commissioner has referred to Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned counsel for the State has also relied upon this approach made by the appellate court and he has also urged, that, the land was non-agricultural land, because of the entry made in the record-of rights with respect to this plot of land to which reference has already been made. The learned counsel for the State has also relied upon this approach made by the appellate court and he has also urged, that, the land was non-agricultural land, because of the entry made in the record-of rights with respect to this plot of land to which reference has already been made. But, referring to the first order of the Deputy Collector, it will appear that he had considered the nature of the settlement as evidenced by the unregistered Hukumnama and his conclusion was that, the settlement had purported to be raiyati settlement. The claimant's case was, that plot no. 3025 had been settled with him in 1995 Sambat and, in proof of his possession he had produced a number of rent receipts mentioned in the order of the Deputy Collector. A rent receipt granted by the State in the year 1955-56 had also been produced. As mentioned earlier, a few counterfoils of these rent receipts had also been brought on the record. On this approach the Deputy Collector had come to the conclusion, that, the claimant's case, that plot no. 3025 had been settled with him in raiyati settlement, was accepted. The learned Deputy Commissioner has not said anything to the contrary with respect to the nature of the settlement evidenced by the unregistered hukumnama. He had merely proceeded on the footing, that, non-agricultural land could not be settled by any unregistered document. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the approach of the appellate court was wholly erroneous and the conclusion of the Deputy Collector has not been reversed on merit. Therefore, it must be held, that, the order of the Deputy Collector dropping the proceeding under section 4 (g) with respect to plot no. 3025 was a correct one. In that view of the matter, this writ application must succeed and the order of the appellate court with respect to plot no. 3025, is quashed. In consequence, the notice issued by the Circle Officer (Annexure 7) must also be quashed. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order for costs. Application allowed.