JUDGMENT D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. The instant writ application has been filed by the petitioners for issuance of a writ in the nature of cer-tiorart quashing the order dated 16.8.1994, passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in Revenue Miscellaneous Appeal No. 199 of 1992-93 and also the order dated 10.7.1992, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka in SC Case No. 154 of 1982-83, whereby the order of settlement of the lands under reference in this case, which were settled by the respondent-Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtaran in favour of the petitioners were cancelled. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they are the Jamabandi Raiyats of Village Bara Rampur No. 5, Police Station-Nala, Sub- Division, Jamtara, District-Dumka and the Jarjiabandi bearing No. 72 of the said village stands recorded in the name of the petitioners' grand-father Yadav All. The "petitioners are in cultivating possession over the land bearing plot Nos. 475, 476, 478 and 480. The land within Plot No. 501, which is surrounded by the jamabandi Plot Nos. 475, 476, 478, 479 and 480 stands recorded in the Anabadi Parcha No. 26 as Jhunti Junlge. On the ground that the petitioners are the holders of the land measuring 1.34 acres only situated contiguous to the land under Plot No. 501, the petitioners had sought a preferential right to claim settlement of the land in Plot No. 501 of Village Bara Rampur and, accordingly, they filed a petition before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara seeking settlement of portion of the land in Plot No. 501 situated in the said village in terms of the provisions of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act. After registering the petition as settlement case No. 154 of 1982-83, the Sub-divisional Officer called for a report from the Circle Officer and the objections, if any from the Forest Department and also from the 16 Annas Raiyats of Mauja Bara Rampur No. 5. The report submitted by the Circle Officer, indicated that the petitioners' claim for settlement of the petitioners' land in Plot No. 501 under Section 28 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949 was bona fide and, accordingly, the Circle Officer had recommended that 4.05 acres of land situated over the Anabadi Khata No. 26 of Plot No. 501 at Mauja Bara Rampur be settled with the petitioners at the rate of 3.50 paisa and other costs. Likewise, the District Forest Officer, Deoghar Division vide his letter dated 10.8.1983 had submitted his report stating, therein, that the land within Plot No. 501 situated in Village Bara Rampur No. 5 is outside the limits of forest and is not a reserved for forest and, therefore, he had no objection to the proposed settlement of the land in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners claim further that though notice was issued by the Sub-divisional Officer in the settlement case but the 16 Anas Raiyats of the village did not raise any objection before the Sub-divisional Officer to the proposed settlement of the said land in favour of the petitioners. Accordingly, by order dated 28.9.1993, the Sub-divisional Officer recorded settlement of 4.05 acres of land within Plot No. 501 in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners thereafter reclaimed a major portion of the land settled with them and construed tanks for irrigation purposes and for fishery and also constructed a house thereon and on the remaining portion of the land, they have been growing Bari crops. Furthermore, they were regularly paying rent to the State in respect of the land settled with them. 3. The further case of the petitioners is that in the year 1989, an objection was raised by the Additional Collector, Dumka before the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, stating that the settlement of the land in favour of the petitioners was made in violation of the provisions of Section 28 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949. The Deputy Commissioner in his turn by his order dated 31.10.1991 called upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the settlement of the land made in their favour be not cancelled and despite the show cause replies filed by the petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 10.7.1992 cancelled the Sub-divisional Officer's order dated 28.9.1993, passed in Settlement Case No. 154 of 1982-83. Against the aforesaid order of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Santhal Parganas Division, Dumka. In the appeal registered as Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 199 of 1992-93, the petitioners had raised several grounds in support of their prayer for setting aside the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner. However, by impugned order dated 16.8.1994, the Commissioner, Santhal Paraganas Division, Dumka dismissed the appeal. 4. The petitioners have assailed the impugned orders as being bad on the points of law. Mr. Appeal No. 199 of 1992-93, the petitioners had raised several grounds in support of their prayer for setting aside the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner. However, by impugned order dated 16.8.1994, the Commissioner, Santhal Paraganas Division, Dumka dismissed the appeal. 4. The petitioners have assailed the impugned orders as being bad on the points of law. Mr. Subhro Sanyal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would argue that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner does not indicate as to under what provisions of law was such order passed. Learned counsel argues that the provisions of Section 59 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949 is not applicable in the instant case since admittedly, no appeal was preferred against the order of settlement within the prescribed period of limitation and furthermore, the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner does not indicate the grounds of satisfaction for interfering with the order of settlement of the land made in favour of the petitioners. Learned counsel would emphasize further that the petitioners were well-qualified for claiming settlement of the land as per the provisions of Section 28 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949 on considering the fact that the petitioners' claim of settlement of land was found bona fide by the Circle Officer and the fact that the Forester also had declared that the land does not fall within the limits of the forest area and further in view of the fact that the 16 Anas Raiyats of the village had not raised any objection to the settlement, and on being satisfied, the Sub-Divisional Officer, made the order of settlement in favour of the petitioners and there can be no reasonable and valid ground for cancelling the settlement of the land made in favour of the petitioners. Learned counsel would further argue that the recommendation of the Additional Collector for cancellation of the settlement was mala fide and with oblique motives and on imaginary grounds and the Deputy Commissioner had grossly erred in adopting the recommendations of the Additional Collector and likewise the appellate authority had also grossly erred in adopting the ground recorded by the Deputy Commissioner without making any discussions on the relevant issues involved in the case. 5. As against this, Mr. 5. As against this, Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would support the impugned orders as passed both by the Deputy Commissioner as well as by the Commissioner, on the ground that under the previsions of Section 59 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949, the Deputy Commissioner was competent in exercise of his revisional powers to revise any order on his own motion or otherwise decided by a Court under his control and in which appeal does not lie or in which for cause shown to the satisfaction, the appeal has not been preferred and there is no time limit prescribed for the authority to revise any order passed by his subordinate Court. It is further argued that the settlement of the land in question made in favour of the petitioners was illegal primarily on account of the fact that the petitioners were not qualified for claiming settlement of the land. Referring to the provisions of Section 28 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act. learned Counsel submits that the provisions of the said section contemplate that it is only waste lands, which may be settled and the settlement of lands can be made only to landless labourers, who are bona fide permanent residents of the village and are recorded for a dwelling house in the village. Learned counsel explains that all the conditions as laid down under Section 28 of the Act have to be fulfilled for qualification. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioners cannot be considered to be landless labourers, since they were already in occupation and possession of 1.4 acres of land and furthermore, the land in Plot No. 501 was not a waste land since as per the revenue records, it was a Jhunti Jungle. 6. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioners cannot be considered to be landless labourers, since they were already in occupation and possession of 1.4 acres of land and furthermore, the land in Plot No. 501 was not a waste land since as per the revenue records, it was a Jhunti Jungle. 6. From the perusal of the impugned order dated 10.7.1992 (Annexure-2) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, it appears that the order was passed in exercise of the powers vested under Section 59 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, which provides that the Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner may on his own motion or otherwise, call for the record of a case decided by a Court under his control in the appeal does not lie or in which for cause shown of his satisfaction, an appeal has not been preferred within the time limited, therefore, may pass such orders in the case as he deems fit. It also appears that amongst the grounds recorded in the order for cancelling the settlement, the Deputy Commissioner has taken note of the fact the land in their Plot No. 501, was recorded in the Survey Khatiyan as Jhunti Jungle and, therefore, it could not be considered as a waste land and in this view of the matter, the report of the Circle Officer submitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer was misleading. The order further indicates that the Deputy Commissioner, has also taken note of the fact that in the report of the Additional Collector it was indicated that the petitioners had failed to cultivate the lands within five years from the date of allotment and, therefore, in exercise of his powers under Section 33 of the Act, had proceeded to cancel the settlement made by the Sub-Divisional Officer. 7. In his impugned order dated 16.8.1994, the Commissioner had taken note of the fact that the land in question was recorded in the Survey Khatiyan as Jhunti Jungle and, as such, the land could not have been settled under the provisions of the Act in favour of any person without prior approval of the Central Government. On this ground as also on the inference drawn that the settlement of the land as made by the Sub-Divisional Officer is totally illegal and "smacks of his collusive behaviour1', has confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner. 8. On this ground as also on the inference drawn that the settlement of the land as made by the Sub-Divisional Officer is totally illegal and "smacks of his collusive behaviour1', has confirmed the order of the Deputy Commissioner. 8. The provisions of Section 28 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, 1949 lays down the principles to be followed in setting waste lands or vacant holdings and reads as follows: 28. Principles to be followed in settling waste land or vacant holdings.--In making settlement of waste land or vacant holdings regard shall be had to the following considerations in addition to the principles recorded in the record-of-rights,-- (a) fair and equitable distribution of land according to the requirements of cash raiyat and his capacity to reclaim and cultivate; (b) any special claim for services rendered to the village community, society or State; (c) contiguity or proximity of the waste land to jamabandi land of the raiyat; (d) provision for landless labourers who are bona fide permanent residents of the village and are recorded for a dwelling house in the village. It is manifest from the above that the provisions of the section deals with settlement of the waste lands only. As per entry in the survey records the land under reference in this case was recorded as Jhunti Jungle and not as waste lands. The claim of the petitioners that though the land was recorded in the survey settlement records as Jhunti Jungle, but the nature of the land had in fact changed and in any case the forest officials had declared the same to be beyond the limits of forest area. This plea cannot be accepted in view of the specific recording in the survey records that the land was a jungle land and not a waste land. 9. Section 59 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act, gives Revisional powers to the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner under which he on their motion or otherwise, call for the records of any case decided by the Court under his control and may pass such order as he may think fit even if no appeal was preferred within the specific time limit against any order passed by the subordinate officer. In the instant case, the proceeding under Section 59 of the Act was initiated by the Deputy Commissioner on the basis of the report received by the Additional Collector and after giving the petitioners an opportunity to be heard, the order setting aside the settlement as made by the Sub-Divisional Officer was passed. The impugned orders as passed by the Deputy Commissioner and also by the appellate authority, namely, the Commissioner do assign adequate reasons for the findings as recorded therein. 10. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders, to interfere with the same. There is no merit in this application. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Application dismissed.