ORDER S.N. Jha, J. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders passed by the Anchal Adhikari, Sahebganj and the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj cancelling the Jamabandi with respect to lands of plot No. 560/1076, Khata No. 207 situate in village Rampur Karar of Sahebganj Anchal in R.M.P. case No. 57 of 1995-96. 2. The petitioners claim the lands in question on the basis of settlement by the ex-landlord (curiously, the date and the other particulars of the settlement have riot been mentioned). According to the respondents, on receipt of the report form the Halka Kaamchari and the Circle Inspector, a proceeding bearing RMP No. 57 of 1995 was initiated in which the Anchal Adhikari issued notice to the petitioners to produce evidence in support of their claim but they did not appear. The petitioners deny that any notice or opportunity of hearing was given to them. According to them, further Jamabandi once opened in favour of a person cannot he subsequently cancelled. Reliance has been placed on Khiru Gope v. Deputy Collector of Lord Reforms. AIR 1983 Patna 121. The aforesaid case was filed on behalf of three petitioners; while two of them, namely, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 claimed on the basis of settlement, petitioner No. 3 claimed on the basis of Jamabandi created in his favour by the Anchal Adhikari. This Court considered their cases separately. The claim of petitioner No.3 was rejected on the ground that in the absence of any valid order of settlement by the competent authority of the State, creation of Jamabandi and grant of rent receipts could not confer any legal right, the claim of petitioner Nos.1 and 2, however, was upheld. This Court following the earlier decision in Harihar Singh and another V. The Additional Collector I/C Land Reforms. Monghyr, 1978 BBCJ 323 and Jamaluddin Ahmad v. S.D.O. Khagaria and others, 1979 BBCJ 609 , held that the authorities had no juridiction or power to cancel the Jamabandi and remove their names. 3. The point for consideration in the present case is as to in which category the case of the petitioners would fall. Monghyr, 1978 BBCJ 323 and Jamaluddin Ahmad v. S.D.O. Khagaria and others, 1979 BBCJ 609 , held that the authorities had no juridiction or power to cancel the Jamabandi and remove their names. 3. The point for consideration in the present case is as to in which category the case of the petitioners would fall. It is obvious that if the petitioners fail to satisfy their case of settlement by the ex-landlord, in the absence of any valid order of settlement by the competent autority of the State they cannot claim the land and, in that event, even if Jamabandi was created in their names, in the absence of any legal right, they cannot make any grievance against the order of cancellation. If, on the other hand, they are able to prove the factum of settlement, their case would be akin to that of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 in Khiru Gope's case (supra). In such a situation, as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, unless the settlement made by the ex-landlord itself is annulled under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the authorities would have no jurisdiction or power to cancel the Jamabandi. There is nothing to show in the present case that any such order as envisaged under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act was passed by the competent authorities. 4. Since the foundational facts are yet to be determined and, as indicated at the outset, the impugned orders were passed behind the back of the petitioners, 1 am inclined to quash the impugned orders. 5. It appears from the counter-affidavit that at a later stage of the proceeding the petitioner had filed some petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj, and some enquiry was also held thereon. However, before the final orders could be passed, the petitioners filed petition for stay of the proceeding and the Deputy Commissioner accordingly, stayed the proceeding on 4r-1196. It appears from the writ petition that the petitioners had also tiled civil suits (Title Suit Nos. 15/96, 20/96 and 33/96) before the 1st Subordinate Judge, Sahebganj, for declaration that they are raiyats and owners of the lands and the orders cancelling the Jamabandi were null and void as well as for permanent injunction. It appears from the writ petition that the petitioners had also tiled civil suits (Title Suit Nos. 15/96, 20/96 and 33/96) before the 1st Subordinate Judge, Sahebganj, for declaration that they are raiyats and owners of the lands and the orders cancelling the Jamabandi were null and void as well as for permanent injunction. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition, statements have been made that since the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 35 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, the petitioners have been advised to withdraw the same and they undertake to do so. Prima facie, I have doubts if the provisions of Section 35 of the said Act would stand in the way of petitioners seeking declaration of their right, title and interest in the land. However, in course of wearing of the case in transpired that the petitioners have already withdrawn the suits. I, therefore, need, make no further observation in this regard. 6. The impugned order as contained in Annexure-3 having been held to be unsustainable, the matter has to go back to the authority for consideration in accordance with law. As indicated above, the proceeding is pending at the level of Deputy Commissioner. In this view, instead of sending the matter back to any other authority, I would direct the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj, to decide the matter. The petitioners may file a comprehensive petition, if so advised. It is expected that the matter will be considered I in correct perspective and disposed of in accordance with law 7. This writ petition is allowed in the above terms. Order Accordingly.