ORDER N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 11th May, 2004 (Annexure-13) passed by the Commissioner, North Chota-nagar Division, Hazaribagh, dismissing the revision application. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing the order dated 24th April, 2003 (Annexure-12) passed by the Additional Collector, dismissing the appeal and also for quashing the order dated 8th December, 2001 (Annexure-11) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh, recommending cancellation of jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner. 2. It has been stated that the said orders have been wrongly passed without taking into consideration the provisions of law and relevant facts. It has been stated that the land was originally recorded in the Cadestral Survey Record of Rights in the name of Bideshi Pahan. Two daughters of the recorded tenant had executed a sale deed 15th July, 1938 in the name of one Mostt. Marchaiyo, transferring their interest. Thereafter, Turpa Pahan, the descendant of the recorded tenant, Bideshi Pahan, and Mostt. Marchaiyo surrendered their interest in the land in favour of the ex-landlord by two registered surrender deeds dated 26th March, 1946 and 14th September, 1944. The ex-landlord, thereafter, settled the area of 9.64 acres of land out of the land of Khata No. 19 in favour of Ratan Sonar, father of the petitioner, by virtue of a deed of settlement dated 24th September, 1947. After the said settlement, the settlee was granted rent receipt. The petitioner, being the son of the settlee, came in possession of the land and has been paying rent continuously. 3. In the year 1999, the respondent No. 5 filed an application before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Hazaribagh for cancellation of the jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner had appeared and filed objection. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector by order dated 8th December, 2001 passed the impugned order (Annexure-11), recommending for cancellation of jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal against the order before the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, but by order dated 24th April, 2003 (Annexure-12), the petitioners appeal was dismissed. He, thereafter, preferred revision before the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh in R.C. Revision No. 63 of 2003. The Commissioner also without giving due consideration to the facts, material and provision of law dismissed the revision. 4. He, thereafter, preferred revision before the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh in R.C. Revision No. 63 of 2003. The Commissioner also without giving due consideration to the facts, material and provision of law dismissed the revision. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said orders, contained in Annexures 11, 12 and 13, are wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. By the said impugned orders, long running jamabandi of the petitioner has been sought to be cancelled, which cannot be done. The jamabandi, once created, cannot be cancelled by the respondents. Learned Counsel, in support of the said contention, has relied on the decision of this Court in Jitan Mahto and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Ors. . Learned Counsel further submitted that the observation made regarding the legality of the transfer without permission of the Deputy Commissioner is also contrary to law, as at the relevant time when the tenancy was surrendered by the recorded tenant, there was no requirement of any permission of the Deputy Commissioner for making such surrender and on that count also, the impugned order is illegal and without jurisdiction. 6. After hearing the learned Counsel and perusing the documents available on record, I find that the Land Reforms Deputy Collector has thoroughly discussed the facts and the materials on record and found that the respondent No. 5 was held to be in possession of the land, in question, in the proceeding under Section 145. Even in the subsequent proceedings, the orders were passed against the petitioner. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector on the basis of the possession declared in favour of the respondent No. 5 and also on consideration of the other order passed in his favour held that the said respondent No. 5 has been in possession of the land, in question, and his ancestor is recorded tenant and that the jamabandi was created in favour of the petitioner without any order of the competent authority and on considering the same recommended for cancellation of the jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner. 7. Learned Additional Collector as also the Revisional Authority have considered the said aspect and have found the order of 145 Proceeding declaring possession of the respondent No. 5. 7. Learned Additional Collector as also the Revisional Authority have considered the said aspect and have found the order of 145 Proceeding declaring possession of the respondent No. 5. In subsequent enquiry by the Revenue staff too, he has been found in possession of the land, in question. It has also been found that the jamabandi created in favour of the petitioner was without any order of the competent authority. 8. Admittedly, there is no order of any higher Court or any decree of the competent Court of jurisdiction against the order declaring possession of the respondent No. 5 in the proceeding under Section 145, Gr PC. He was also found in possession by revenue authority. There was no order of any competent authority creating jamabandi in favour of the petitioner. 9. The decision in Jitan Mahtos case (Supra) has been rendered of different facts. In the said case, there was no such order declaring possession in favour of a party by a competent Court. The same is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 10. In view of the above, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. This writ petition is dismissed.