JUDGMENT Tapen Sen, J. 1. The Petitioner in the instant case has prayed for quashing the Order dated 09.11.1995 (Annexure 6) passed by the Respondent No. 1 [Commissioner North Chhotanagpur] in Revision Case No. 9/95 whereby and whereunder he set aside the Order dated 12.12.1994 passed by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh in M.A. No. 64 of 1994 and Ordered that permanent steps be taken so that Mostt Meghni (Respondent No. 6) is not dispossessed from 0.78 Acres of land situated on Khata No. 78 appertaining to Khesra/Plot No. 1563/ 10. By passing the said Order, the Respondent No. 1 thereby upheld the Order dated 18.01.1993 passed by the Circle Officer. In the Supplementary Affidavit filed by way of amendment on 21.03.2003, the Petitioner at paragraph 4 has submitted that while considering the prayer made in the Writ Application, the Order passed by the Circle Officer on 18.01.1993 be also quashed and the order of the Additional Collector passed on 12.12.1994 be upheld. 2. According to the Petitioner, 03.00 acres of land situated within Khata No. 78, Plot No. 1563 along with other lands on different plots in village Konra within Barhi P.S. in the District of Hazaribagh were recorded as "Gair Mazarua Khas" land of the ex-landlord of the village, namely, the Raja of Barsot. These lands were given in settlement to the father of the Petitioner namely Mahadeo Thakur. The said Mahadeo Thakur paid "Salami and came in possession of these lands immediately thereafter. He reclaimed the land, improved the same after spending a huge amount of money and made it cultivable. On Plot No. 1563, he constructed a "Bhandar" and on the rest of the plots, he carried on the work of cultivation. The Petitioner relies upon the "Hukumnama" granted by the ex- landlord in favour of his father vide Annexure 1. 3. The Petitioners father continued paying rent to the ex- landlord till vesting and, after vesting, he paid rent to the State Government regularly. The first rent receipt issued by the State being rent receipt No. 792318 dated 10.01.1954 was in respect of "Sambat 2009-2010" [i.e. 1952-1953] and it has been marked as Annexure 2. The other rent receipts paid to the State which is Annexure 2/1 is said to cover the periods 1957- 1958, 1958-1959 and 1959-1960. The first rent receipt issued by the State being rent receipt No. 792318 dated 10.01.1954 was in respect of "Sambat 2009-2010" [i.e. 1952-1953] and it has been marked as Annexure 2. The other rent receipts paid to the State which is Annexure 2/1 is said to cover the periods 1957- 1958, 1958-1959 and 1959-1960. The Petitioner has further stated that the Tenants Ledger maintained in the Anchal Office at Barhi (Annexure 3) shows payment of rent up to 1991-1992. According to the Petitioner, the payments are however recorded till 1991-1992, i.e. the date of taking out of the certified copy but in fact, rents have been paid right upto 1994-1995 and in support thereof the Petitioner relies upon Annexure 4. 4. The Petitioner has stated that he came to learn that a "Bedakhali case No. 20/1992-1993 had been instituted by the Anchal Akhikari, Barhi (Respondent No. 4) on the basis of a collusive "Parcha" which was issued by the "Bhoodan. Yagna Sammittee"-Incharge. By reason of the said "Parcha" an area of 0.78 acres was sought to be donated to the Respondent No. 6 out of 3.00 acres falling on Plot No. 1563 and which was a part of the land settled by the ex-landlord in favour of the father of the Petitioner. The Petitioner objected but the Circle Officer (Respondent No. 4) arbitrarily passed an Order on 18.01.1993 (Annexure 9 to the Supplementary Affidavit filed on 21.03.2003) by which he accepted the report of the Amin and closed the matter. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has stated that in fact, the Circle Officer restrained the issuance of rent receipts in the name of the father of the petitioner and instead, directed the issuance of rent receipts in favour of the Respondent No. 6. Consequently, the Petitioner filed Misc. Case No. 14 of 1991 before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 5), but by Order dated 13.09.1993, the said Respondent No. 5 rejected the Appeal of the Petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner filed a Revision before the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh which was registered as M.A. No. 64 of 1994. By Order dated 12.12.1994 (Annexure 5), the Additional Collector after perusal of all documents of settlement and also of the Revenue Records set aside the Order dated 13.09.1993 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector in Misc. Case No. 14/1991. 5. By Order dated 12.12.1994 (Annexure 5), the Additional Collector after perusal of all documents of settlement and also of the Revenue Records set aside the Order dated 13.09.1993 passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector in Misc. Case No. 14/1991. 5. Being aggrieved, the Respondent No. 6 filed a Revision before the Commissioner (Respondent No. 1) vide Misc. (Bhoodan) Revision No. 9/1995 and by Order dated 09.11.1995 (Annexure 6) the said Commissioner differed from the Order of the Additional Collector passed on 12.12.1994 and set aside the same. 6. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Commissioner (Respondent No. 1) set aside the Order 12.12.1994 passed by the Additional Collector on grounds that were really irrelevant to the issue. One of the grounds taken into consideration was that the Petitioner could not file one missing receipt showing payment of rent for the land in question for the period 1954-55, 1955-56, 1956-57 and that the Petitioner could not file the original rent receipt and hence according to the Respondent No. 1, the Petitioner had not been able to substantiate his claim. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 1 failed to appreciate that the rents for the entire lands measuring 10.37 acres including 03.00 acres right from 1952-53 to 1954-55 had been filed and merely because one rent receipt had not been filed for the period 1954-1955 to 1956- 1957, the said non-filing could not make the Petitioners case doubtful in the teeth of other substantive evidences in the Revenue Records. The Petitioner has further stated that the Respondent No. 1 could very well have looked into the Tenants Ledger and such other Revenue Records for purposes of establishing that the Petitioner did have a substantive case. The petitioner has further stated at paragraph 12 of the Writ Application that the Respondent No. 1 while passing the impugned Order (Annexure 6) setting aside the Order of the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh (Annexure 5) passed in favour of the Petitioner, worked under a wrong impression that Khata No. 78 recorded as "Gairmajarua Khas" of the "Malik" in the original khatian and as such the Character of the land as mentioned in the Khatian made the Respondent No. 1 to conclude that it could be given in "Bhoodan Parcha" to any person. But he failed to appreciate that the character of the land had itself changed with the settlement made by the Ex-landlord as far back as in "Sambat 1999" when settlement was made with the Petitioners father. The same was the case after vesting of the Zamindari of Barsot in the State Government, and with the filing of the Returns by the erstwhile Zdmindar, the land was no longer "Gairmaj-rua Khas" but had assumed "raiyatt" character and that character continued when the same was inherited by the Petitioner after the death of his father. This tenancy is continuing un- interruptedly from much before the Bhoodan Act came into existence. Plot. No. 1563 having an area 3.00 acres is the raiyati holding of the Petitioner and it cannot be a subject matter of settlement by "Bhoodan Parcha". The Circle Officer (Respondent No. 4} and the Deputy Collector Land Reforms (Respondent No. 5) have committed grave error in taking the said plot as "Gairmajrau Khas" on the basis of the Records of rights prepared in 1910 A.D. 7. In the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 4, the history of litigation has been narrated at paragraph 4 and after narration of different stages when Orders had been passed in the manner stated above, it has been finally stated that there is nothing to justify the issuance of a writ in favour of the Petitioner and as such, the Writ should be dismissed. At paragraph 7 of the Counter Affidavit it has been stated inter alia that the Order donating the land was passed under Section 17 A of the Bihar Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 and that the provisions contained in the said Section have been fully adhered to. It has further been stated at paragraph 11 that the Land Reforms Deputy Collector (Respondent No. 5) did not Order the cancellation of the demand of rent and therefore rent receipts were issued in the name of the Petitioner. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms simply examined the genuineness of the demand and submitted his recommendation to the Sub Divisional Officer. It has further been stated at paragraph 11 that the Land Reforms Deputy Collector (Respondent No. 5) did not Order the cancellation of the demand of rent and therefore rent receipts were issued in the name of the Petitioner. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms simply examined the genuineness of the demand and submitted his recommendation to the Sub Divisional Officer. These Respondents have further stated that "Zamindari return filed by the Petitioner shows that the land of the Khata No. 78 had been settled with a number of tenants including the Petitioner but that document did not indicate the boundary of the land settled with each tenant separately and as such the Petitioner cannot be allowed to say that the land in question stood included in his land. 8. From a perusal of the different Orders that has been passed in this case, it appears that notices were issued upon the Respondent No. 6 on a number of occasions and finally, the service report indicates that on 15.04.1998, the notice was served upon her but she refused to acknowledge receipt. Thereafter on 02.05.1998, the Office put up a note pointing out that service report had been received and service was valid. Inspite thereof, the Respondent No. 6 has not appeared. 9. The basic contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that, the land in question having been settled firstly in favour of his father by the ex-landlord and his father having continued to remain in uninterrupted possession and subsequently, after vesting, rents having been paid to the State, his status became that of a full fledged Raiyat and the Bhoodan Yagna Act could not have upset his possession and that too, when there was non compliance with the relevant statutory provisions of the said Act. Two particular Sections of the Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954, namely, Sections 10 and 16 are relevant to be taken note of. While Section 10 makes it mandatory that any donation of land must be made by the owner by a declaration in writing in that regard. Section 16, on the other hand, makes it specific that every such donation must be settled on the basis of a Registered Instrument. Section 10 and Section 16 of the Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 reads as follows :-- "110. Section 16, on the other hand, makes it specific that every such donation must be settled on the basis of a Registered Instrument. Section 10 and Section 16 of the Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954 reads as follows :-- "110. Donation of land.--(1) Any person being the owner of any land may donate such land to the Bhoodan Yagna Committee or to Shri Acharya Vinoba Bhave by a declaration in writing in that behalf (hereinafter called the Bhoodan Yagna Danpatra) :-- Provided that no person shall, for the purposes of this Act, be entitled to donate any land of the following classes namely :-- (a) any cremation or burial ground, tank or pathway; (b) lands recorded in the record-of-rights as gair mazrau-am; (c) land held under service tenures; (d) any forest land notified under any of the provision of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 or the Bihar Private Forests Act, 1947. (e) Lands containing mines and minerals, whether discovered or undiscovered or whether being worked or not. and (f) any other land which the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify; (2) Bhoodan Yagna Danpatra shall be filed before the Revenue Officer appointed under this Act as soon as it is made. " 16. Settlement of donated land prior to distribution.--(1) When any land has been vested in the Committee under sub-section (1) of Section 13 or is deemed to have vested under sub-section (2) of section 15, the Committee may. for the period intervening between the date of its vesting and the date of its grant [under Section 14] settle it with any person, who has the means to cultivate the land and is willing to do so, far purposes of cultivation for such period and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. Such settlement shall be made a registered instrument. Such settlement shall be made a registered instrument. [Provided that, if the Committee has not settled such land with any person under this sub-section, and the donor has continued in possession and enjoyed the usufruct of the land, the donor shall be deemed to be the settlee thereof during the period intervening the date of its vesting and the date of its grant under Section 14 and such donor shall be liable for that period to pay to the State Government the rent that he would have been liable to pay for that land to his landlord before the date of such vesting] (2) No right of occupancy in such land shall accrue to the settlee and shall be liable to be ejected on the expiry of the [Period of settlement.] [Provided that, where the donor is deemed to be the settlee of the land under this Section, he shall be liable to be ejected on the date of its grant under Section 14.]" 10. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to proved that the settlement was made by a Registered Instrument. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a Supplementary Affidavit bringing on record the photocopy of the "Parcha" on the basis whereof, the Circle Officer had donated the land. The settlement by "Parcha" without there being a Registered Instrument as is required under Section 16, in the opinion of this Court, does not fulfill the basic elementary condition for donation as stipulated under the Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1954. 11. In that view of the matter, the Settlement/Donation made by the Circle Officer in favour of the Respondent No. 6 by Order dated 18.01.1993 is held to be illegal and consequently the same is set aside. Accordingly, the Order of the Commissioner dated 09.11.1995 (Annexure 6) is also quashed. However, taking note of the statements made in the Counter Affidavit, it would be desirable that the matter be inquired into by the Deputy Commissioner at his own level so that he may pass an order in accordance with law. 12. Consequently, the Writ Application is allowed. The impugned Orders are set aside and the matter is remanded. However, taking note of the statements made in the Counter Affidavit, it would be desirable that the matter be inquired into by the Deputy Commissioner at his own level so that he may pass an order in accordance with law. 12. Consequently, the Writ Application is allowed. The impugned Orders are set aside and the matter is remanded. For the convenience of all the parties, it would now be the duty of the Writ Petitioner to immediately file a detailed brief containing all the relevant documents that he wishes to rely upon before the Deputy Commissioner within a period of eight weeks from today. Upon receipt of the aforementioned documents, the Deputy Commissioner shall issue notice to the concerned parties and thereafter shall inquire into and hear the matter and pass an Order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the respective parties. It goes without saying that if the Respondent No. 6 avoids to appear for some reason or the other, the Deputy Commissioner shall get the notice published in the Newspaper and for that, the Petitioner shall pay the requisite costs. Till final Orders are passed, status quo as existing today shall be maintained.