Order AFTAB ALAM, J. This writ petition arises from a proceeding under the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Municipal Survey Act. The dispute relates to Plot No. 409(new) situate in ward no.9 of the Saharsa Municipality. The disputed plot 409(new), along with plot nos. 281 (new) and 288(new) was carved out during the last survey operations from old plot nos. 1773 and 1774 and it is an admitted position that the disputed plot no.409 was formed by a portion of old plot no. 1773. It is further an admitted position that old plot no. 1773 Of Khata no. 846(old) having an area of 9 kathas 12 dhurs was recorded in the cadestral survey record of rights in the name of one Hansi Charhar under Tauzi No. 3687 of the ex-landlord Bibi Shakina wife of Abdul Gaffar. 2. According to the petitioners the successor of the record tenant surrendered the plot in question to the landlord who came in its cultivating possession as her khas land. Later on, the ex-landlord settled a large piece of land measuring to an area of' 4 bighas, 11 kathas 3 dhurs in favour of one Sikander Hussain by a Parwana issued in the year 1345 Fasli. The piece of land being the subject matter of settlement comprised of a number of plots of Khata nos. 933 and 934 and also included plot no. 1773 of Khata No. 846. Following the settlement the settlee Sikandar Hussain came in possession of those lands. The petitioners produced a number of evidences in support of their claim that plot no. 1773 of Khata No. 1846 after having been surrendered by the recorded tenant was settled by the ex-landlord in favour of Sikandar Hussain. These included, besides the Parwan, (i) Rent receipts issued by the ex-landlord to the settlee, (ii) Cess revaluation return issued by the ex-landlord in the year 1941-42 in the name of Sikandar Hussain for 4 bighas, 11 kathas, 3 dhurs; (iii) return filed by the ex-landlord to the State of Bihar at the time of vesting of Zamindari under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and (iv) documents showing the creation of Jamabandi in the name of Sikandar Hussain and entry of his name in Register II. 3. It is further the case of the petitioners that they purchased the land of plot no. 3. It is further the case of the petitioners that they purchased the land of plot no. 1773 (9 kathas, 12 dhurs in area) from Sikandar Hussain under a registered sale deed no. 7308, dated 24.11.1956 on payment of valuable consideration. The petitioners then got the land of plot no. 1773 amalgamated with their land of the adjacent plot no. 1774 (9 kathas 5 dhurs in area), thus bringing into existence a larger block of land. Later, on partition taking place among their co-sharers the petitioners got 1/3rd share in that bock at land. They got their names mutated in the Anchal records on the basis of order passed in their favour in Mutation Case No. 902/76-77 and they were assigned Jamabandi No. 65 in Register II. The State of Bihar recognized them as raiyat and rent receipts were issued in their names. 4. It is further stated that during the last Municipal Survey the names of the petitioners were entered at the stage of Khanapuri in respect of three plots, being plot nos. 287,288 and 409 which were carved out from the old plots 1773 and 1774. An objection under section 9 was filed on behalf of respondents 6 to 11 which gave rise to Objection Case No. 388 8/83. The objection was rejected by the Assistant Superintendent Municipal Survey by his order dated 13.9.1985 (Annexure-2). The respondents then preferred an appeal before the Superintendent of Survey as provided under Rule 15(1) of the Municipal Survey Rules. 5. In the meanwhile the respondents also preferred an appeal before the L.R.D.C. against the order passed in Mutation Case No. 902/76-77 on the basis of which Jamabandi No. 65 was created in the name of the petitioners in respect of plot no. 1773. The D.C.L.R., by order dated 26.7.1982 allowed that appeal without realising that the appeal was hopelessly barred by time; it was filed on 3.9.1980 against the order passed by the Anchal Adhikari on 28.2.1977. Against the order passed by the D.C.L.R. the petitioners filed revision no. 134/82-83 before the Additional Collector, Saharsa who by his order dated 29.10.1983 allowed the revision and set aside the order of the D.C.L.R. The respondents then preferred a second revision before the Commissioner which was registered as Revision No.101/83-84. The Commissioner allowed their revision disregarding the fact, according to the petitioners, that no further revision was maintainable before him. 134/82-83 before the Additional Collector, Saharsa who by his order dated 29.10.1983 allowed the revision and set aside the order of the D.C.L.R. The respondents then preferred a second revision before the Commissioner which was registered as Revision No.101/83-84. The Commissioner allowed their revision disregarding the fact, according to the petitioners, that no further revision was maintainable before him. Against the order passed by the Commissioner the petitioners filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2106/96 which was admitted by this court on 3.9.1986 with a direction to maintain status quo. 6. In the appeal filed by the respondents in the Municipal Survey proceedings the Superintendent of Survey also took into consideration the order passed by the Commissioner in the mutation proceeding and finally, by order, dated 23.5.1988 passed in Appeal Case No. 306/85; allowed the appeal of the respondents, setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Superintendent and giving the direction to carve out another plot on the western end of disputed plot no. 409 and to enter the name of the respondents in respect of that plot showing it to be under unauthorised possession of the petitioners. It is this order passed by the Superintendent of Survey that comes under challenge in this writ petition. 7. The respondents claim to be the heirs and successor of Hansi Chamar. They strongly deny the petitioner's case that plot no. 1773 of Khata No. 846 was surrendered by Hansi Chamar or his successors to the ex-landlord. According to them, the story of surrender is quite false and the evidences produced in support of it are collusive and fraudulent. In support of their claim that Hansi Chamar never surrendered plot no. 1773 to the ex-landlord and that piece of land always remained under his possession the respondents produced materials and documents and primarily relied upon a Cess revaluation report of the year 1941-42 issued by the ex-landlord in respect of that plot. It was further pointed out on their behalf that under the same Khata No. 846 there was another plot no. 1781, the land of which was acquired by the State for construction of Polytechnic building. In the acquisition proceeding the award was prepared in the name of Genai, one of the sons of the recorded tenant Hansi Chamar. It is contended that it would be highly unlikely that plot no. 1781, the land of which was acquired by the State for construction of Polytechnic building. In the acquisition proceeding the award was prepared in the name of Genai, one of the sons of the recorded tenant Hansi Chamar. It is contended that it would be highly unlikely that plot no. 1773 would be surrendered while another plot of the same khata would continue to remain under the possession of the heirs of the recorded tenant. 8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the Superintendent of Survey. From the impugned order it appears that during the pendency of the appeal a spot inspection was also r1ade on the direction given by the Superintendent and the Enquiry Officer had submitted his report, dated 2.4.1988 from which it appears that the disputed land was found to be in possession of the petitioners. The Superintendent of Survey, however, does, not seem to have attached much importance to the question of possession and has proceeded to examine the claims of the parties concerning title over the land. The Superintendent of Survey, however, does, not seem to have attached much importance to the question of possession and has proceeded to examine the claims of the parties concerning title over the land. The following passage from the impugned order may be usefully extracted here: "UBHAY PAKSH KE UPARYUKT DAVON AWAM PRAMANO PAR AGAR HAM VICHAR KAREIN TO PATE HAI KI UBHAY PAKSH USHE SUIKAR KARTE HAI KE SAWIK KHATA SANKHAYA 946 HANSI CHAMAR KE NAM DARJ THA AISHI ISHTITHI ME IN JAB HANSI CHAMAR AWAM UNKEY WANSAJ MAUJUD THE TAB UNKE DAWARA ISH KHATA KA EK KHESHARA 1773 KO SURRENDER KAR DENEIN KA KOI KARAN NAHI DIKHTA HAL ISH KHATA KE ANTARGAT DARJ ANAI KHESHRA SANKHAYA 1781 KE LIYE SARKAR DAWARA BHU ARJAN HONE KE UPARANT JAB HANS I KO RAIYAT MANA GAYA TAB ANAI KHESHRA 1773 KE SURRENDER KI KAHAN I KUCH ATPATI SI LAGTI HAI AUR WAH BHI TAB JAB KI SURRENDER AUR WARSH 1938 SAL MEIN SHEIKH SIKANDAR HUSSAIN KE NAM BANDOBASTI KE BAD WARSH 1941-42 ME IN USHI JAMINDAR DAWARA HANSI CHAMAR KE NAM SEN REVALUATION RETURN SAWIT (SIC) KHATA SANKHYA 946 KE KUL RAKWA KE SAMTULYA 1 BIGHA 3 KATHA 2 DHUR KA PRALEKHTAMAK PRAYASH UPLABDH HAI TAB HANSI CHAMAR DAWARA SUN 1938 KE PURVA JAMINIJAR KE PAKCH MAIN SA BIT KHESHRA SANKHAYA 1773 KA SURRENDER KE KAHANI AWISHWASHNIYE AWAM MAN GARHANT LAGTI HAL JAMINDARI UNMULAN KE SAMAY KARAN JO BHI RAHA HO JAB JAMINDAR NEI HANS I CHAMAR KE NAM ISH SAWIK KHESHRA SANKHYA 1773 KA RETURN NAHI DAKHIL KEYA LAGTA HAI USHI SAMAYA YAH SADA PARWANGI BANAI GAI JISHSHE KE HANSI CHAMAR KO USHE RAIYATO HAKITAT SEH MAHROOM KEY JA SAKE ANYATHA AGAR YAH PARWANGI WARSH 1938 MAIN WASTAV MAIN TAMIL HUA THA TO USHI KE LIYA HANSI CHAMAR KE NAM SE REVALUATION RETURN DAKHIL KARNE KA KOI AUCHITYA AWAM KARAN MUJHE NAHI DIKHTA HA. ISH PRAKAR MERI RAI MAIN KANHAIYA LAL SAH KE VIKRETA SHEIKH SIKANDAR HUSSAIN KA VIVADI SAWAII KHESHRA SANKHYA 1773 PAR HAKIYAT AWAM HAKOOK VEDAG NAHI THA. AGAR EK OR HANSI CHAMAR JAISHE HARIJAN TATHA DUSHRI OR BIBI SHAKINA TATHA UNKE SALHAR ABDUL GAFFAR JAISHE SAMPAN JAMINDAR KE BICH KE VIVAD KO DRISHTIGAT RAKHKAR AGAR HAM VICHAR KAREIN TO ISTHITI KA SAHI MULYANNKAN KARNE MAIN HAMEIN MADAD MILIGI." 9. AGAR EK OR HANSI CHAMAR JAISHE HARIJAN TATHA DUSHRI OR BIBI SHAKINA TATHA UNKE SALHAR ABDUL GAFFAR JAISHE SAMPAN JAMINDAR KE BICH KE VIVAD KO DRISHTIGAT RAKHKAR AGAR HAM VICHAR KAREIN TO ISTHITI KA SAHI MULYANNKAN KARNE MAIN HAMEIN MADAD MILIGI." 9. He has finally concluded that the story of surrender propounded on behalf of the petitioners was false and raiyati interest of Hansi Chamar and his successors over the disputed land remained subsisting. 10. From the portion of the order relied upon it appears to me that the learned Superintendent of Survey has proceeded on surmises and in proceeding to decide the question of title between the parties he also seems to have exceeded his jurisdiction. It is also not quite clear why was a direction given to create a new plot at the western end of the disputed land and to enter it in the name of the respondents showing the unauthorised possession of the petitioners. The need to carve out another plot is specially not clear to me. 11. For all these reasons I find it difficult to sustain the impugned order passed by the Superintendent of Survey. The impugned order dated 23.5.1988 passed in Appeal Case No. 306/85 is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Superintendent of Survey for a fresh decision in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. 12. In the result, this writ petition is allowed but with no order as to costs.