By Court The petitioners, eighteen in number, have filed this application for quashing the order of the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Jamui, dated 6th March, 1978, contained in Annexure-1, by which he which he has cancelled the four jamabandi, namely, Jamabandi nos 205, 334, 363 and 364 in favour of different petitioners mentioned in the impugned order. It my be stated that the Deputy Collector, respondent no. 1, started a Jamabandi case No. 3 of 1977-78 whereby he cancelled several Jamabandis including the four Jamabandis in this case, however, have an acre of 68.05 acres only. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they are settled raiyats of the village and their ancestors had acquired occupancy right of the lands in question and have taken settlement from the ex-intermediary by Hukmnamas copies of which have been filed as Annexure-8, 11 and 15 for the different jamabandis mentioned above, respectively. Their further case is, that they are in cultivating possession for more than twenty years. 3. It may be mentioned that some other Jamabandi raiyats, who were evicted by the impugned order, had come to this court in C.W.J.C. No. 2297 of 1978 and that case has been disposed of by a reported decision in Khiru gope & others. Vrs. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Jamui & others1 where it has been laid down that there is no authority in the collector under the Bihar Land Refoms Act, to cancel a Jamabandi made in favour of a settle from the ex-intermediary. Although the Anchal Adhikari and the Karamchari were competent to make the necessary entries in the Tenants’ Register, open Jamabandi and fix rent in relation to settled land, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector had no jurisdiction or power to cancel the Jamabandi and remove the names of the setlee from the said register. 4. Taking the above view the writ application was allowed and the order of respondent no. 1 was allowed and the order of respondent no. 1 was cancelled so far as it related to the concerned petitioners. 5. 4. Taking the above view the writ application was allowed and the order of respondent no. 1 was allowed and the order of respondent no. 1 was cancelled so far as it related to the concerned petitioners. 5. Since the matter has been discussed in full detail in the reported case, which applies with all force in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we would be contented by simply applying the ratio of the present case and following the principle we allow the application and quash the order contained in Annexure-1 in so far as it relates to the present petitioners. But, in the circumstances, however, we shall make no order as to costs. Application allowed.