Judgment 1. This writ petition arises out of a proceeding under section 48D of the Bihar Tenancy Act. 2. The petitioner claims to be an under-raiyat having occupancy rights. He filed application (Case No. 35/93-94) under section 48D of the said Act which was allowed by the Anchaladhikari, Rupouli on 8.3.94. Respondent no. 4 filed appeal (Case No. 4/94-95) before the Sub-divisional Officer, Dhamdaha. By order dated 27.9.95 the SDO set aside the order of the Anchaladhikari and rejected the application of the petitioner. The petitioner has approached this court challenging the correctness of the said order of the SDO dated 27.9.95, copy whereof has been marked annexure-5 to the writ petition. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the revisional survey record-of- rights finally published on 8.3.58, the name of the petitioner has been shown as Sikmidar with respect to the land in question. His status as under-raiyat vis-a- vis landlord can not therefore be doubted. With the passage of time on completion of 12 years he must therefore be deemed to have acquired occupancy rights. However, the SDO has rejected his claim merely on the ground that the petitioner had executed a deed of Ladawi relinquishing his interest in the disputed land in favour of the respondents on 13.9.55. He pointed out that in the 70s, proceeding had been taken for division of the crops under section 69 of the Bihar Tenancy Act in which positive orders were passed. It was submitted that the said orders are also evidence of the petitioners claim. 3. Counsel for the respondents submitted that after partition of the joint family lands of the family of the respondents, the petitioner purchased lands of the same very plot from other co-sharer but filed the present application seeking tenancy rights under section 48D against the respondent. As regards the orders passed under section 69 of the Act it has been contended that the respondent was not party to those orders. 4. In the facts of the case, after hearing the counsel for the parties I am inclined to direct the SDO to pass fresh orders. In my opinion, if the SDO thought that the Anchaladhikari should have taken into account the deed of Ladawi he should have set aside the order and aksed the Anchaladhikari to consider the same. 4. In the facts of the case, after hearing the counsel for the parties I am inclined to direct the SDO to pass fresh orders. In my opinion, if the SDO thought that the Anchaladhikari should have taken into account the deed of Ladawi he should have set aside the order and aksed the Anchaladhikari to consider the same. This however could not be a sufficient justification to finally reject the claim of the petitioner. In this connection I would like to observe that a deed of socalled deed of Ladawi has little legal effect, for it does neither create nor extinguish ones right or interest in the lands. Therefore, I do not think much importance should be attached to the document. The SDO also lost sight of section 103-B of the B.T. Act which creates presumption of correctness of the entries in finally published record-of-rightsboth backward and forward. The record-of-right in question has been published in 1958, it is doubtful if the petitioner had executed the deed of Ladawi, its legal effect apart. In my opinion, proceeding under section 48D is to be decided on the basis of an independent enquiry after giving opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and it would also be appropriate if before final order is passed, local inspection is made and the local residents are examined. 5. In these premises, I am of the opinion that the impugned order of the SDO should be set aside and he be directed to consider the matter afresh. 6. The order of the SDO dated 27.9.95, as contained in annexure- 5, is accordingly set aside. The matter is sent back to him for fresh decision in accordance with law. 7. This writ petition stands allowed.