Order By Court.- The petitioners, by way of filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 18.3.1991 (Annexure-1 to this petition) passed by the respondent Commissioner, Santhal Parganas at Dumka in Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 157/89-90 affirming the order dated 2.9.89 (Annexure-2 to this petition) passed by the respondent Deputy Commissioner, Dumka in Revenue Misc. Revision No. 15 of 1989-90. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the orders impugned as well as materials placed on record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner, namely, Dwarika Nath Mandal had instituted Title Suit No.72/1991 in the Court of Subordinate Judge of Jamtara, Dumka, which is barred under Section 63 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949. After disposal of the said suit on the ground of jurisdiction, the petitioners preferred application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jamtara, District-Dumka and the said application was disposed of vide its order dated 23.12.1987. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 23.12.1987, the respondent-16 Anna Raiyat preferred Revenue Misc. Revision being Revenue Misc. Revision No. 15 of 1988-89 before the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka and the said revision application was ordered to be allowed vide its order dated 2.9.1989 and thereto the order passed by the SDO dated 12.12.1987 has been set aside. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dated 2.9.1989, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Dumka being Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 157/1989-90, and the learned Commissioner, Dumka after affording opportunity of being heard to the parties, rejected the said appeal vide order dated 18.3.1991 and affirmed the order of the Dy. Commissioner, Dumka. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring the provision as contained in Section 35 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 submitted that the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Commissioner, Dumka being appellate authorities failed to take into consideration the provision as contained in Section 35 of the said Act. It is also submitted that the view taken by the Dy. Commissioner as well as the Commissioner, is contrary to the provision as contained in Section 35 of the said Act. 7. It is also submitted that the view taken by the Dy. Commissioner as well as the Commissioner, is contrary to the provision as contained in Section 35 of the said Act. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his submission has also referred to and relied upon Annexure-4 and Annexure-5 series i.e. Patta and rent receipts, respectively. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his case also referred to and relied upon the judgment reported in 1996(2) PLJR 656 (Anwar Ali and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Ors.). 8. The learned counsel appearing for the State Government by referring and justifying the orders passed by the appellate authority as well as revisional authority submitted that the said orders are well reasoned order and finding recorded by these two authorities are in consonance with the provision of law. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of 16 Anna Raiyat by referring the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner as well as Commissioner has submitted that the said orders have been passed after taking into consideration the facts as well as position of law and thereby the order passed by the S.D.O. has been set aside. It is further submitted that the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner is in consonance with the provision as contained in Section 35 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949. It is further submitted that the learned Commissioner has also endorsed the view, which has been taken by the learned Dy. Commissioner in Revenue Revision No. 15/1989-90. The learned counsel appearing for the 16 Anna Raiyat submitted that there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by the appellate as well as revisional authorities on merit. It is also submitted that the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not help to the petitioner's case rather it helps to the case of 16 Anna Raiyat. Lastly it is submitted that the present writ petition has no merit and it may be dismissed. 9. From considering the rival submissions of the parties and from perusal of impugned orders as well as materials placed on record, it appears that the order passed by the SDO has been reversed and set aside by the Dy. Commissioner, Dumka after careful consideration of the facts and position of law as contained under Section 35 of the Santhal parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949. Commissioner, Dumka after careful consideration of the facts and position of law as contained under Section 35 of the Santhal parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949. It further appears that the said view has also been endorsed by the learned Commissioner while taking decision in Revenue Appeal. The view taken by both authority is in consonance with the provision as contained under Section 35 of the S.P.T. Act. Section 35 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949 reads as under:- "35. Water reservoirs and channels for irrigation, etc. not to be cultivated or converted to other purposes.—(1) Bandhas, aharas, tanks and other water reservoirs or channels, which are used either for the purposes of protection from flood or for irrigation, bathing, washing or drinking, shall not be settled for or converted to any other purpose without the consent of the raiyats and the village headman or mulraiyat, or the landlord in khas village, and the approval of the Deputy Commissioner. No one shall bring under cultivation any such water reservoir or channel. (2) No proprietor or landlord shall be entitled to levy any charge for the use of water reservoirs and channels mentioned in sub-section (1) for irrigation, bathing, washing or drinking purposes." 10. The judgment referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in a case of Anwar Ali and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1996(2) PLJR 656 does not support the case of the petitioners. Paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the said judgment read as under:- "14. The respondent No. 2 in his impugned order noticed that the plot no. 1789 has been recorded as puratan patit. He observed:- "it admits the fact that plot no. 1445 is still being used by the sixteen-anna raiyats of the village for irrigation purposes and I find the transfer through sale deed in the name of the respondents bearing plot no. 1445 completely violates the provisions of Section 35 of the S.P.T. Act. As to plot no. 1789 it was recorded as puratan patit. 1445 is still being used by the sixteen-anna raiyats of the village for irrigation purposes and I find the transfer through sale deed in the name of the respondents bearing plot no. 1445 completely violates the provisions of Section 35 of the S.P.T. Act. As to plot no. 1789 it was recorded as puratan patit. The executor of the sale deed had no legal right to sell the disputed land." he thereafter held : "I find the transfer of these two disputed plots have been made against the provision laid down under Sec. 35 of the S.P.T. Act debarring the sixteen-anna raiyats to use the water of the tank for irrigation and drinking purposes. As regards the cancellation of these sale deeds, the appellants may file a proper suit in the relevant court but with this observation that the transfer in the name of the respondents has been made in utter violation of the S.P.T. Act is illegal and void transfer." 14-A. Respondent No. 2 evidently had no jurisdiction to decide a complicated question of title while exercising his jurisdiction under Sec. 35 of the said Act. The respondents have contended that no sale of a tank can be made by a raiyat. What is noticed hereinbefore, is prohibited under the said provision inter alia, is to make settlement i.e. no settlement shall be made by the landlord in favour of anybody. However, the tank in question, as noticed hereinbefore, had already been settled and as has been admitted is recorded as lakhraj land. Even from the perusal of Annexure-24 to the writ application, it is clear that officer of the Revenue Department admitted that the land in question is saleable. 15. The Respondents 2 and 3 have not held that the said report was incorrect or the deed of sale was executed in utter violation of the provisions of Sec. 20 of the said Act. The said question was never raised before respondents 2 and 3 and thus it cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in the Court. 16. The said question was never raised before respondents 2 and 3 and thus it cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time in the Court. 16. Respondent No.2, further has committed an illegality in holding that the deed of sale was void being hit by Section 35 of the said Act although, he himself held that the same cannot be annulled in terms of the aforementioned provisions and himself having held that in order to decide the question of title, a suit may be filed by the petitioners. The respondent no. 2, therefore, exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. The respondent no. 2 further committed an illegality in purporting to hold that by reason of the said deed of sale a right of 16-anna raiyats of taking water for drinking, bathing, irrigational facility from the said tank had been interfered with although the petitioners categorically stated before the said authority that such rights of the villages have not been interfered with by them. It is, thus, clear that respondent no. 2 by reason of the impugned order made an attempt to establish the title of the State over the lands in question indirectly which he could not do directly while exercising his purported jurisdiction under Sec. 35 of the said Act. 17. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned orders as contained in Annexures-12 and 13 to the writ applications cannot be sustained. 18. Before parting with this case, I must observe that if the tank is converted for the use of any other purpose or brought under cultivation, it would be open to the affected raiyats or the State to initiate an appropriate legal action against the petitioners. It is further made clear that the disputed question of title of the petitioners in respect of the aforementioned tank may be decided in an appropriate proceeding." From the above referred judgment, it appears that the land in question cannot be utilized for the other purpose without prior consent of 16 Anna Raiyat as per provision as contained in Section 35 of the Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act, 1949. In view of the above referred provision of law as well as settled proposition of law in the above referred judgment, the order passed by the learned Commissioner affirming the order of the learned Dy. In view of the above referred provision of law as well as settled proposition of law in the above referred judgment, the order passed by the learned Commissioner affirming the order of the learned Dy. Commissioner is not required to be disturbed as there are concurrent findings of facts. As held in the above referred case law, the disputed question of title over land on which water reservoir or water channel is situated can only be decided by way of filing a suit. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that the learned Commissioner after careful consideration of the facts of the case and keeping in mind the provision of law passed an order and therefore, intervention of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not required. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed.