Judgment A. K. Ganguly and j. JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The writ application has filed by the petitioners challenging the legality of three orders which are at Annexures-3,4 and 5. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they are jamabandi raiyats of Pradhani village-Ballamdih and they are poor raiyats of the said village having very small areas of land, whereas, respondent No.6 is the village Headman and respondent Nos.4 and 5 are his brothers living jointly and respondent no.6 is also the Karta of the family, and they are in possession of a substantial portion of the land. In support of the said fact the petitioner has annexed certain khatian slips. 3. The further case of the petitioners is that respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed a petition before the divisional Officer, Dumka on 1st february, 1977 in which respondent No.6 was made opposite party for settlement of lands and in the said proceeding the petitioner was not made a party. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid prayer of the private respondents and they filed objection before the Sub-Divisional Officer in s. R. Case No.601 of 1976/77 and the sub-Divisional Officer by the order dated 17-11-1978 cancelled the said recommendation by the Circle Officer for settlement of plot of land in question in favour of the private respondents no.4 and 5 or the ground that respondent nos.4 and 5 have large areas of lands, and the Sub-Divisional Officer was pleased to direct the Anchaladhikari to give reports on certain points which are mentioned in para 7 of the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the aforesaid order for cancellation of the settlement in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 the present impugned order at Annexure-3 has been passed by the S. D. O. recommending the settlement in favour of the said private respondents and the same amounts to review of the earlier order dated 17-11-1978. 4. Learned Counsel submits that under Sec.28 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary provisions) Act, 1949 such review is not permissible. In that view of the matter, he submits that order at Annexure-3 is wholly incompetent in law and the subsequent orders in appeal or revision should also be struck down on that basis. 5. 4. Learned Counsel submits that under Sec.28 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary provisions) Act, 1949 such review is not permissible. In that view of the matter, he submits that order at Annexure-3 is wholly incompetent in law and the subsequent orders in appeal or revision should also be struck down on that basis. 5. Learned Counsel for the State in answer to the said contention submits that the previous order dated 17-11-1978 is not final order. By the said order the S. D. O merely asked for a report. Thereafter, on the basis of the said report he passed order which is at Annexure-3. Therefore, there is nothing irregularity in the same. 6. The other contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the said report has not been submitted by the Circle Officer, but it was submitted by the Halka Karamchari which is not in terms of the previous order dated 17-11-1978 and the report submitted by the Halka Karamchari was not obtained upon notice to the parties concerned. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that thereby the said report is not in conformity with the standing instruction as contained in order No.3473 dated 21st October, 1957 issued from the office of the deputy Commissioner, Santhal Parganas, dumka relying on the settlement of waste, fauti and ferari land in a village recorded as Khas. According to the counsel for the petitioner such statutory notification must be complied with in any such proceeding relating to equitable distribution of land. 7. Another contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the land mentioned in the impugned order is a Forest Land and no notification can be issued to change the nature of the land. The said statement has been made in para-6 of the writ petition. From the impugned revisional order dated 23rd April, 1984 also it appears that the lands are recorded as palas Jungle. Learned Counsel for the state submits that any portion of the land cannot be settled in favour of the private party if the land in question is recorded as Forest Land. 8. In that view of the matter, this court quashes the impugned order at annexure-S, inasmuch as, Annexure 5 shows that no proper report has been submitted by the Circle Officer before settlement of Forest Land in fovour of the private parties. 8. In that view of the matter, this court quashes the impugned order at annexure-S, inasmuch as, Annexure 5 shows that no proper report has been submitted by the Circle Officer before settlement of Forest Land in fovour of the private parties. The matter, therefore, be remanded to the Commissioner dumka, who is at present authorised to deal with this matter who is added as respondent No.8 to this writ petition. The said Commissioner Dumka is directed to ascertain the following and pass necessary orders as per the directions given below: - I. Whether the land in question which is covered under the impugned order at annexure-5 is Forest Land or not. If the land in question is Forest land, In that case there cannot be any settlement in favour of the private respondents. II. If the land in question is not Forest land then before settlement a proper report must be obtained from the Circle officer. Thereafter, on the basis of the said report he has to pass necessary orders for settlement. 9. Since the matter is an old one, the Commissioner Dumka is directed to take immediate steps to ascertain the nature of the land as aforesaid. If he is satisfied that the said land is not Forest land according to the report of the circle Officer, then final order shall be passed within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If otherwise he is satisfied that the said land is not Forest land in that case he will pass appropriate order in accordance with law. With the above observation the aforesaid writ petition is disposed of. Order Dismissed