Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.S. Dayal, teamed St. Counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned JC to GA on the application at flag I in which a prayer has been made for stay of the operation of the impugned order dated 31st August, 1998 as contained in Annexure-11 to the writ application. 2. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid order dated 31-8-1998 issued under the signature of respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa, whereby he has cancelled the settlement of the tank in question in favour of the petitioners. 3. The petitioners case is that pursuant to the Government decision dated 6-5-1992 as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application it was decided to settle 102 tanks for long terms. Out of 102 tanks, 65 tanks were settled in favour of the members of Scheduled Tribes, 8 tanks were settled in favour of Harijans and 66 tanks were settled in favour of other Backward Classes. It is stated that reserve Jama of the tank in question was also fixed by the competent authority and the petitioners deposited the said amount and were granted rent receipts and after settlement of the tank with the petitioners they were put in possession of the tank in question. The petitioners further case is that on that ill motive of Ban Bihari Lohar a proceeding under Sec. 144, Cr. P.C. was initiated and. on the basis of order passed by the S.D.O. recommending cancellation of the settlement, the Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3, District Fisheries Officer, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa. In para 10 and 11 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that a proceeding under Sec. 144, Cr. P.C. was initiated for the prevention of breach of pease on the report of Ban Bihari Lohar, which proceeding was ultimately dropped with the observation, that the tank was wrongly settled with the petitioners and as such, settlement could be cancelled. 5. There is no dispute that the tank in question was settled with the petitioners and the petitioners were put in possession. It is also not in dispute that before passing the impugned order of cancellation the petitioners were neither noticed nor any cancellation proceeding was initiated against them for cancellation of settlement. It is surprising that on the mere observation of the. It is also not in dispute that before passing the impugned order of cancellation the petitioners were neither noticed nor any cancellation proceeding was initiated against them for cancellation of settlement. It is surprising that on the mere observation of the. Sub-Divisional Officer in the order under Sec. 144, Cr. P.C. the respondent No. 2 acted upon and passed the impugned order. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid fact, it is a fit case where the prayer made in the I.A. petition should be allowed. Hence, the operation of the impugned order dated 31st August, 1998 as contained in Annexure-11 to the writ application shall remain stayed.