ORDER : Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahay, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.3 to 15. 3. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, A.C. to S.C. (L&C) appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 16. 4. This writ petition was originally filed for quashing the order dated 22.07.2008 passed by the Respondent No.2 in R.M.R. No. 18/06-07 as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ petition whereby the revision filed by respondent nos.3 to 15 was allowed and the Settlement Officer, Dumka was directed to get the area duly demarcated and settled with the petitioners upon comparing with that of the new plots and was directed to correct the Khata accordingly. During the pendency of the writ petition the direction as contained in impugned order dated 22.07.2008 was duly carried on by the Settlement Officer, Dumka by passing order dated 20.02.2014 and accordingly the petitioner filed I.A. No. 2782 of 2014 challenging the subsequent order dated 20.02.2014 by which the Settlement Officer, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka corrected the revenue records in the name of the private respondents. The amendment was allowed by order dated 19.11.2014 passed by this court. Thus, in this writ petition the order dated 22.07.2008 passed in R.M.R. No. 18/2006-07 passed by the Respondent No.2 i.e., Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka as well as consequent order dated 20.02.2014 passed by the Settlement Officer, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka are under challenge. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier moved this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No. 2836 of 2007 challenging the order dated 28.11.2006 passed by the Commissioner Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in Revision Miscellaneous Case No. 18/2006-07 on the ground that on 14.11.2006 the case was fixed for hearing of the stay matter but it was heard on merits and the petitioners did not get a chance to reply to the documents filed by the petitioners of the revisional case. By order dated 01.04.2008 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2836 of 2007 the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka who was directed to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. Pursuant to order dated 01.04.2008 passed in W.P.(C). No. 2836 of 2007, the parties appeared before the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka who thereafter passed the impugned order dated 22.07.2008. 6. Pursuant to order dated 01.04.2008 passed in W.P.(C). No. 2836 of 2007, the parties appeared before the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka who thereafter passed the impugned order dated 22.07.2008. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the specific case of Respondent Nos. 3 to 15 before the revisional court was that originally the land stood recorded in the name of Puran Rai, Piyari Rai & Tewari Rai the ancestors of the petitioners herein and Puran Rai was the Pradhan of the Mauja who defaulted in payment of the rent and hence Eviction Case No. 53 /1935-36 was instituted and vide order dated 25.06.1936 Pradhan was evicted from half portion of the land (Jote) and said half of the Jote was settled with Ganju Rana the ancestor of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 15 herein and the rest of the Jote was returned to the ancestors of the petitioners herein. Further case of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 15 before the revisional authority was that the settlement was duly approved by the competent authority as back as in the year 1936 and the settlee was put in possession through the process of Court and the report of the Amin was also confirmed on 19.06.1937 and a portion of land settled with the ancestors of Respondent Nos. 3 to 15 was shown in red ink and marked as ‘A’. 7. The specific case of the petitioner before the court of Commissioner was that Puran Rai, Piyari Rai and Tewari Rai were jointly the recorded Raiyat and they are the descendants of the Piyari Rai and Tewari Rai and the orders passed against Puran Rai is not binding on them. The petitioners of the revisional case who are Respondent Nos. 3 to 15 herein had made specific plea before the revisional authority that they were ordered to be evicted without giving any opportunity of hearing to them to produce any documents regarding settlement etc. and they were directed to be evicted from entire property. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners are the descendants of the recorded Raiyat and so they are entitled for the entire property. 8. On the other hand counsel for the respondent nos. and they were directed to be evicted from entire property. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners are the descendants of the recorded Raiyat and so they are entitled for the entire property. 8. On the other hand counsel for the respondent nos. 3 to 15 has submitted that after proper proceeding the ancestors of the petitioners were duly evicted from half of the Jote and said half of the Jote was settled in favour of the ancestors of respondent nos. 3 to 15 which stood unchallenged for years together and it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the same after a lapse of more than 40 years. He submits that the settlement in favour of the ancestors of the respondent no 3 to 15 has been done in accordance with law. 9. It is further submitted that there is no dispute that the Respondents Nos. 3 to 15 are in possession of the property which has been demarcated to them. The counsel for the respondents submits that the claim of Respondent Nos. 3 to 15 is only with regard to half of the Jote and they are not claiming the entire land. Accordingly, he submits that the impugned order which has been passed by the Revisional Authority is a detailed order and the same is in accordance with law which does not requires any interference. 10. On the other hand counsel for the State submits that the impugned order is detailed order and there is no dispute that the property can be easily demarcated and it cannot be said that the property was never demarcated earlier. The counsel for the respondents also submits that the specific case of the petitioner before the revisional court was that the property cannot be allocated to the ancestors of respondent nos. 3 to 15 unless it is duly demarcated. Counsel for the respondents submits that the revisional court has taken this into consideration the entire facts and has found that the property was already demarcated only the corresponding new plot was to be assigned and allocated. 11. 3 to 15 unless it is duly demarcated. Counsel for the respondents submits that the revisional court has taken this into consideration the entire facts and has found that the property was already demarcated only the corresponding new plot was to be assigned and allocated. 11. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after going through the records of the case, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 22.07.2008 passed in R.M.R. Case No. 18/06-07 by the court of Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka particularly in view of the fact that the respondents herein have claimed their right over the property by virtue of orders passed as back as in the year 1936 when 50 percent of the Jote of the recorded tenant was settled in favour of the ancestors of Respondent Nos.3 to 15. From the perusal of the impugned order it appears that the grievance of the petitioners is that the property could not have been possessed by the Respondent Nos. 3 to 15 in absence of any demarcation. This court finds that this plea is also fit to be rejected because the order clearly mentions that the property between ancestors of the petitioners and the ancestors of the Respondents Nos. 3 to 15 stood duly demarcated and identified and only corresponding plot as per the subsequent survey was to be allotted to them. It further appears that order passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka has been duly given effect and the properties between the petitioners and the Respondent Nos.3 to 15 has already been demarcated by the subsequent impugned order dated 20.2.2014. Moreover this court is of the considered view that it is not open to the petitioners to question the legality and validity of the orders passed as back as on 25.6.1936 in eviction case number 53 of 1935-36 and its consequent actions and orders. 12. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case this court finds no illegality in the impugned orders and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.