ORDER 1. A proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was initiated by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi for cancellation of settlement of land in question. After notice to a dead person, namely, Late Ishwar Dayal Singh, it was cancelled vide order dated 3rd June, 2002. The writ petitioner/respondent whose members were in possession of the land and claimed ownership of the land, moved in appeal. The Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi rejected the appeal vide order dated 2nd July, 2002. The aforesaid order when challenged by the writ petitioner/respondent in W.P. (C) No. 4320 of 2002, the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 25th April 2003 allowed the writ petition. 2. The main plea taken by the appellant is that the land, in question, was illegally transferred in favour of Ishwar Dayal Singh for the purpose of defeating the provisions of Land Reforms Act. 3. The brief fact of the case is that one Jagdish Prasanna Nath Sahdeo was recorded Khewatdar of the land of Khata No. 119 and Khata No. 113 of village Bazra, P.S. Ranchi (now known as Sukhdeo Nagar). The said landlord settled 22.75 acres of land comprised within R.S. Plot No. 227 under Khata No. 919 and 9.18 acres comprising within R.S. Plot No. 228 of Khata No. 113 in favour of Ishwar Dayal Singh by delivery of possession, followed by soda hukumnama issued on 2nd February, 1952. On payment, rent receipts were also issued in favour of Ishwar Dayal Singh, who came in possession of the said land. Even after vesting of the intermediary interest under the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, rent receipts were issued and in the return filed by the landlord, name of Ishwar Dayal Singh was shown as the settlee of the land in question. Jamabandi was also created in favour of Ishwar Dayal Singh and demand opened in his name. 4. Subsequently, said: Ishwar Dayal Singh sold various portions of land in favour of writ petitioner/respondent, namely Mithila Sahkari Grih Nirman Sahyog Simiti for the purpose of construction of residential building for its members. The writ petitioner/respondent Samiti altogether purchased 31.91 acres of land of R.S. Plot No. 226 of Khata No. 119 and R.S. Plot No. 228 of Khata No. 113. The writ petitioner/respondent Samiti altogether purchased 31.91 acres of land of R.S. Plot No. 226 of Khata No. 119 and R.S. Plot No. 228 of Khata No. 113. On the basis of such purchases, it got its name mutated before the Circle Officer, Ranchi vide Mutation Case No. 1067 R27/83-84. Rent receipts were also issued in favour of the Samiti and the Samiti is continuously paying the rent to the State of Bihar. The Circle Officer, thereafter, suo motu initiated a proceeding against writ petitioner/respondent/Samiti and the vender Ishwar Dayal Singh for cancellation of jamabandi. It was registered as Misc. Case No. 30/93-94. The writ petitioner/respondent/Samtti having come to know of the same appeared before L.R.D.C. and submitted documents showing purchased of land and its mutation. The Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 3rd June, 2002 directed for cancellation of settlement of the land under Section 4(h) of the Land Reforms Act, 1950. The said order was affirmed by the appellate authority, as mentioned above. 5. From the enclosure attached to the writ petition and the impugned order, it appears that during the life time of Ishwar Dayal Singh, the settlement was accepted to be valid and mutation was allowed. Rent receipts were also issued by the State. After number of years and after death of said Ishwar Dayal Singh, notice was issued on him for cancellation of jamabandi. Without taking into account the aforesaid fact that the settlement was dead and that in the year 1952, the ex-landlord had given delivery of possession coupled with the grant of rent receipts and executed a hukumnama dated 2nd February, 1952 and that the name of Ishwar Dayal Singh was included in the return cancelled the settlement. 6. It appears that notice for cancellation was issued only in respect to 11 acres of land of Plot Nos. 226 and 228 and not with regard to total land. It further appears that when report was placed before the L.R.D.C., he made an enquiry and passed a reasoned order on 28th December, 1998 holding that the question of cancellation of jamabandi does not arise and ordered to close the file. 226 and 228 and not with regard to total land. It further appears that when report was placed before the L.R.D.C., he made an enquiry and passed a reasoned order on 28th December, 1998 holding that the question of cancellation of jamabandi does not arise and ordered to close the file. However, after one year, when the other L.R.D.C. was posted, he recommended by initiation of cancellation of jamabandi proceeding in terms with the order dated 18th August, 1999 and thereafter record was forwarded to the Subdivisional Officer, who forwarded it to the Additional Collector for passing appropriate order. In the year 2000, again a notice was issued from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner against a dead person, namely, Late Ishwar Dayal Singh for cancellation of jamabandi of only 11 acres of land of Plot Nos. 226 and 228. However, when final order was passed, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi directed to cancel the jamabandi in respect of the entire land for which no separate notice was given to any person. 7. Having noticed the aforesaid facts and circumstances the learned Single Judge held the approach of the Deputy Commissioner as illegal and without jurisdiction. We find no case made out to differ with the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge. 8. There being no merit, this appeal is dismissed.