Order Both these writ petitions arise out of the common order dated 12.12.2005 passed by the respondent Deputy Commissioner, Pakur in R.M.P. Case No.1 of 1997-98 said to have been initiated on the application of Arjun Rabidas, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1057 of 2006, challenging the settlement and gift purcha in favour of Abdul Hamid, adoptive father of the petitioner, in W.P.(C) No. 1053 of 2006 Ruksana Khatun @ Rukhia Khatun. 2. By the aforesaid impugned common order the petitioner Ruksana Khatun @ Rukhia Khatun is aggrieved on account of the reason that validly made settlement and gift purcha issued in B.P.P.H.T. Case No. 4 of 1980-81, contested by Shashi Rabidas, father of Arjun Rabidas, the other petitioner, has been sought to be cancelled after 24 years on misconceived grounds. It has further submitted on behalf of the petitioner Ruksana Khatun @ Rukhia Khatun that the proceeding for annulment of the same settlement initiated by the Shashi Rabidas, father of Arjun Rabidas, in Revenue Miscellaneous Case No. 255/1981-82 was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pakur, but again attempt has been made in Revenue Miscellaneous Petition NO.1 of 1997-98 by Arjun Rabidas wherein, impugned order has been passed canceling the settlement in favour of the petitioner Ruksana Khatun @ Rukhia Khatun by the District Commissioner, Pakur and declaring the said piece of land to be treated as Government land by holding the transfer in the name of Ruksana Khatun @ Rukhia Khatun by her adoptive father Abdul Hamid as in contravention of Section 15 read with Section 9 of the Bihar Privileged Persons Home stead Tenancy Act. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Deputy Commissioner has acted like title court in considering whether the transfer by the said Abdul Hamid in the name of Ruksana Khatun @ Rukhia Khatun the petitioner was not proper. However, his findings are also not conclusive rather uncertain and vague on this point. 4. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Deputy Commissioner has acted like title court in considering whether the transfer by the said Abdul Hamid in the name of Ruksana Khatun @ Rukhia Khatun the petitioner was not proper. However, his findings are also not conclusive rather uncertain and vague on this point. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Ruksana Khatun @ Rukhia Khatun also submitted that the rent receipts of the said plot were constantly issued after the settlement in 1981-82 and he has submitted that the Circle Officer has submitted a enquiry report giving all the facts in favour of the petitioner Ruksana Khatun @ Rukhia Khatun and also stating that the widow of Abdul Hamid had deposed in favour of the present petitioner by an affidavit that she was properly adopted. 5. According to the learned counsel, the Deputy Commissioner has not considered the entire submissions of the parties including the report of the Circle Officer and has arrived on a finding which suffers from non-application of mind over a validly made settlement of land over which the petitioner Ruksana Khatun @ Rukhia Khatun is living with her family member. The house over the said plot is a pucca house having six rooms from which she has sought to be evicted. 6. On the other• hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner Arjun Rabidas submits that the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order in a completely misconceived manner by holding that the piece of land belongs to the Government. As per the learned counsel, the petitioner Arjun Rabidas had clearly stated that the land had been illegally transferred in the name of Abdul Hamid which belongs to his father Shashi Rabidas. In any case, after evicting the petitioner Ruksana Khatun @ Rukhia Khatun the land ought to have been given back to Arjun Rabidas. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of both the writ petitions and common impugned order dated 12.12.2005. From bare perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the contentions of the parties have not been taken into account as record hereinabove, before passing the impugned order. 8. At the same time, the Deputy Commissioner has returned an uncertain finding on the question whether the petitioner Ruksana Khatun @ Rukhia Khatun was validly adopted by Abdul Hamid. From bare perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the contentions of the parties have not been taken into account as record hereinabove, before passing the impugned order. 8. At the same time, the Deputy Commissioner has returned an uncertain finding on the question whether the petitioner Ruksana Khatun @ Rukhia Khatun was validly adopted by Abdul Hamid. The learned counsel for the petitioner Ruksana Khatun @ Rukhia Khatun has submitted that the report of the Circle Officer is eloquent on this issue and the deposition of the widow of Abdul Hamid was also brought on records which clearly supports the factum of valid adoption. From the aforesaid impugned order it does not appear, that in the determination of the issue the relevant facts and contentions have properly been taken into account and discussed before coming to the finding in the impugned order which suffers from vagueness. The finding suffers from non-application of mind and as such the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and it is, accordingly, set aside. 9. However, the matter is remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur to decide afresh after giving adequate opportunity to both the parties i.e. the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 1053 of 2006 i;e. Ruksana Khatun @ Rukhia Khatun and her husband Emran Mian and petitioner Arjun Rabidas in W.P.(C) No. 1057 of 2006 who are also contesting parties and, thereafter, pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law taking into account all necessary facts and documents within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid directions and observation, these writ petitions are disposed of.