JUDGMENT : M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajeev Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. No one appears on behalf of the respondents in spite of service of notice upon them. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.1.1997 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5795 of 1994, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. For better appreciation, the impugned judgment and order dated 21.1.1997 is quoted herein below: After having heard learned Counsel for the parties, this writ application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself with consent of the parties. In this writ application the prayer is for quashing the orders dated 16.5.94 as well as 7.5.90 by which the petitioners have been non-suited from the lands, in question. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has challenged the impugned orders mainly on the ground that the same question which is invalid in this writ application was earlier decided by the authority against the private respondents as far as back in the year 1965 and the said order was also confirmed in appeal by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Pargana vide order dated 31.1.66, a copy of the same are made annexure-2 and 3 respectively and as such, this writ application is barred by principle of res judicata, After going through the materials on record it appears that the issue involved in the earlier proceeding was not the same as involved in the instant proceeding. In that view of the matter, the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is wholly mis-conceived. That apart the findings arrived at by the courts below are all concluded findings of facts and, as such, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. This writ application is accordingly dismissed. 3. The petitioners, who are appellants, filed the aforementioned writ petition challenging the order dated 7.5.1990 and 16.5.1994 whereby the Revenue Authority, at the instance of the respondents, set aside the order of confirmation dated 5.8.1961 passed in Bhoodan Confirmation Case No. 48 of 1957-58. 4. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The land in question situates in village Chitarpoka in the district of Deoghar has been recorded in the survey record as Parti Kadim. The village Chitarpoka, Anch.il Manoharpur was under the Ghatwali Estate of the Ghatwal of Laxmipur Estate. 4. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The land in question situates in village Chitarpoka in the district of Deoghar has been recorded in the survey record as Parti Kadim. The village Chitarpoka, Anch.il Manoharpur was under the Ghatwali Estate of the Ghatwal of Laxmipur Estate. The petitioners' case is that in the year 1953, the Ghatwal of Laxmipur Estate gifted the disputed land to late Acharya Vinobha Bhave in district Bhoodan Committee, Deoghar. The said form of gift was submitted to the Revenue Officer, namely, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Deoghar for confirmation of the said 'Daanpatra'. A proceeding for confirmation was initiated being Bhoodan Confirmation Case No. 48 of 1957-58. After following the procedure of notice and after verification of the 'Daanpatra', the Revenue Authority confirmed the sale vide order dated 5.8.1961. It is stated that no appeal or revision was filed against the aforesaid order of confirmation and the land stood vested in the Bhoodan committee. The petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest were given the land by issuing 'Praman-patra' and the rent was fixed by the Circle Officer, Manoharpur in the names of the tenants. It appears that in the year 1964-65, one Amo Manjhi of village Chitarpoka created trouble in respect of possession of the said land, as a result of which, the tenant and Bhodan Committee filed petition in the court of Revenue Officer for ejectment of the said Amo Manjhi and others from the Bhoodan land. A case was registered being Ejectment Case No. 12 of 1964-65. In the said case, order was passed on 30.9.1965 evicting the said trespasser from the land. Against the said order, Amo Manjhi and nine others filed Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 79 of 1965-66 in the court of Deputy Commissioner, Santhal Farganas, which was heard by the Addt. Deputy Collector who finally dismissed the appeal vide order dated 31.1.1966. 5. Although the orders passed by the Revenue Authority attain its finality, but after about 16 years, the same respondent once again disturbed the possession over the Bhoodan lands, as a result of which petitioner/appellants again filed an application being Eviction Case No. 1 of 1983-84. This time respondent took complete different defence that the Bhoodan land was settled with them by the Mulraiyats (original raiyats). The Revenue Authority who considered the application and passed the order for ejectment of the respondent from the Bhoodan land. This time respondent took complete different defence that the Bhoodan land was settled with them by the Mulraiyats (original raiyats). The Revenue Authority who considered the application and passed the order for ejectment of the respondent from the Bhoodan land. Against the said order, respondent then filed appeal in the Court of Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, who allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 9.3.1989 passed by the Revenue Officer. The petitioners/appellants then moved the Commissioner by filing Misc. Revision No. 37/1990-91. The Commissioner affirmed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 6. From perusal of the impugned judgment, it is evidently clear that leaned Single Judge has considered all these facts and rightly held that the question with regard to right of the writ petitioner was earlier decided by the respondent-authority against the private respondent as far back as in the year 1965 and the said order was confirmed in appeal by the Additional Deputy Commissioner Santhal Pargana vide order dated 31.1.1966. However, due to inadvertence, learned single Judge instead of holding that the subsequent claim made by the respondent on the issue of settlement was barred by res judicata, wrongly recorded in the order that the writ petition was barred by res judicata. As a matter of fact, leaned Single Judge was of the view that the question of title decided in the year 1965-66 by the Revenue Authority in favour of the writ petitioner could not have been re-opened. Learned Single Judge, therefore, instead of allowing the writ petition, dismissed the same. In our view, there is error apparent on the face of the record. 7. As noticed above, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of service of notice upon them. In the aforesaid premises, there is no option but to set aside the judgment dated 21.1.97 passed by the learned Single Judge holding that subsequent orders passed by the Revenue Authority dated 7.5.1990 and 16.5.1994 are illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. This appeal is allowed accordingly.