JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 16.02.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.353 of 2003, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 04.09.2001 passed by the respondent no.3 in case No.1/97, T.R. No.79 R 15/2000-01, by which, the transfer made by Deed dated 16.04.1948 has been cancelled along with subsequent demands opened in respect of the land in question as also the order dated 20.08.2002 passed by the respondent no.2 in Ranchi Misc. Appeal No.067/2002 confirming the order dated 04.09.2001, have been declined to be interfered with. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, required to be enumerated, are as hereunder:- It is the case of the writ petitioners/appellants that the land appertaining to R.S. Plot Nos.549 and 1051 of Khata No.60 situated at village Kamre, P.S. Kanke, District Ranchi was recorded in the revisional survey record of right as Gair Majarua Malik in the names of Bishun Dayal Bharti and others. Kailash Nath Bharti son of Bishun Dayal Bharti and others settled the lands measuring an area of 1.25 acres and 10.80 acres i.e., 12.05 acres respectively out of R.S. plot nos.549 and 1051 of khata no.60 situated at village Kamre, P.S. Kanke, District Ranchi in favour of Babu Krishna Ballabh Narayan Singh by virtue of registered deed of settlement dated 16.04.1948 and the settlee came into possession over the same. It is the further case of the writ petitioner/appellants that the settlee, namely, Babu Krishna Ballabh Narayan Singh paid rent to the then landlord and rent receipts were duly issued by the then landlord. After vesting of the estate the then landlord (exintermediary) filed return under the provision of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 showing that the said lands of R.S. Plot No.1051 measuring 10.80 acres and R.S. plot no.549 measuring 1.25 acres total 12.05 acres are in possession of the aforesaid Babu Krishna Ballabh Narayan Singh having raiyati right over the same. The said Babu Krishna Ballabh Narayan Singh by virtue of registered deed dated 27.04.1961 relinquished his interest with respect to the aforementioned lands in favour of one Smt. Bameshwari Devi. The said Babu Krishna Ballabh Narayan Singh by virtue of registered deed dated 27.04.1961 relinquished his interest with respect to the aforementioned lands in favour of one Smt. Bameshwari Devi. The said Smt. Bameshwari Devi applied for mutation of her name and after making due enquiry the Circle Officer found her in possession of the said lands and allowed mutation in her name vide order dated 21.01.1963. The said Bameshwari Devi was remained in possession over the land in question and thereafter, the said Bameshwari Devi sold the lands measuring 12.05 acres out of plot nos.549 and 1051 of khata no.60 situated at village Kamre, P.S. Kanke, District Ranchi in favour of Abdul Hazif, Mansoor Ansari and Md. Ismail jointly and put them in possession over the same. The said Abdul Hazif, Mansoor Ansari and Md. Ismail sold the land measuring 1.25 acres out R.S. plot no.549 and 2.80 acres out of R.S. plot no.1051 total 4.05 acres to Nilanchal Sahkari Grih Nirman Sahyog Samitee Limited. The Nilanchal Sahkari Grih Nirman Sahyog Samitee Limited applied for mutation of its name with respect to the said 4.05 acres appertaining to R.S. plot no.549 and 1051 of khata no.60 situated at village Kamre, P.S. Kanke, District Ranchi on the basis of which mutation case no.324R -27 of 1990-91 was registered and the Circle Officer after making due enquiry passed the order for mutation of name of the said Samiti vide order dated 28.08.1990 and accordingly, correction slip was issued and rent receipts has been issued in the name of said Samiti. The said Samiti distributed the said land among its members. The writ petitioners who are the members of the said Samiti have also been allotted the lands out of plot no.1051 and accordingly, deeds of sale were executed and registered in the name of the petitioners on 16.03.1989 and the petitioners were put in possession over their lands. The said Samiti distributed the said land among its members. The writ petitioners who are the members of the said Samiti have also been allotted the lands out of plot no.1051 and accordingly, deeds of sale were executed and registered in the name of the petitioners on 16.03.1989 and the petitioners were put in possession over their lands. Thereafter, the petitioners applied for mutation of their names before the Circle Officer, Kanke and after due enquiry the Circle Officer found that the petitioners are in possession of their respective lands and thereafter, the Circle Officer vide order dated 17.08.1992 allowed the mutation in favour of the petitioner no.1, namely, Sapan Kumar Saha vide Mutation Case No.437R27 of 1992-93 and Mutation Case No.435R27 of 1992-93 was allowed in the name of the petitioner no.2, namely, Prakash Ballabh Sahay and accordingly, correction slips were issued. Thereafter, a general notice published under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 on 30.03.2001 in the daily newspaper Prabhat Khabar by which, notice was given to the petitioners and others that the D.C.L.R., Ranchi has recommended for cancellation of jamabandi with respect to the lands measuring 10.80 acres of plot no.549 and 1051 of khata no.60 of the said village and called upon to file objection. In pursuant to the notice, the petitioners filed their written statement along with relevant documents before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Case No.01 of 1997-98, T.R. No.79R15 of 2000-01. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi without properly considering the materials on the record and the documents produced by the petitioners has cancelled the transfer made vide deed dated 16.04.1948 and all subsequent demands opened in respect to the land in question have also been cancelled. The writ petitioners, being aggrieved with the said order preferred Misc. Appeal No.067 of 2002 before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi who without properly considering the materials on the record dismissed the same vide order dated 20.08.2002. It is evident from the factual aspect as referred hereinabove that the land having been settled in favour of Sri. K.B.N. Singh on 16.04.1948, i.e., much before coming into force of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1950), has been cancelled by initiating the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 but without taking into consideration the fact that the subsequent demand has been opened. K.B.N. Singh on 16.04.1948, i.e., much before coming into force of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1950), has been cancelled by initiating the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 but without taking into consideration the fact that the subsequent demand has been opened. The writ petitioners, on the aforesaid pretext, have preferred writ petition being W.P.(C) No.353 of 2003 but the same has been dismissed, against which, the present intra-court appeal. 3. Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-writ petitioners has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the fact in right perspective in declining to interfere with the order dated 04.09.2001 passed by the respondent no.3-Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in case No.1/97, T.R. No.79 R 15/2000-01 as also the order dated 20.08.2002 passed by the respondent no.2-the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Ranchi Misc. Appeal No.067/2002, has dismissed the writ petition, even though, the subsequent demands have been opened in lieu thereof, the rent receipt has also been issued, therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from patent illegality and hence, not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the learned Single Judge has also not appreciated the fact that the reason assigned in passing the impugned order by the Administrative Authority that the landlord were not competent to do settlement after 01.01.1946 but the aforesaid order has been passed without taking into consideration the fact that the land in question has also been recorded in the name of Sri K.B.N. Singh on the basis of the settlement made by ex-landlord, even though, he came in possession but the finding has been given that the said Sri. K.B.N. Singh has never come in the possession of the property. The Further submission has been made that the learned Single Judge has not considered the fact that the land since has been settled in favour of Sri K.B.N. Singh and hence, the same cannot be said to be Gairmajaruwa in view of the fact that the regular rent was paid and in lieu thereof, the rent receipts have been issued. The Further submission has been made that the learned Single Judge has not considered the fact that the land since has been settled in favour of Sri K.B.N. Singh and hence, the same cannot be said to be Gairmajaruwa in view of the fact that the regular rent was paid and in lieu thereof, the rent receipts have been issued. Learned counsel for the appellant, on the basis of the aforesaid fact has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from illegality and hence, not sustainable in the eye of law. 4. Per contra, Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State of Jharkhand by defending the order passed by the learned Single Judge has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order, since, the Administrative Authority after taking into consideration the fact that the settlement if made on or after 01.01.1946, can always be the subject matter of inquiry by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of power conferred under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950. It has been submitted that herein the land admittedly claimed to have been settled in favour of the said Sri K.B.N. Singh on 16.04.1948 which was after 01.01.1946, the cut-off date provided under Section 4(h) and if in that pretext, the inquiry has been conducted by the Deputy Commissioner in pursuance to the power conferred under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950, basis upon which, if the conclusion has been arrived at regarding the illegal settlement of the land only for the purpose to frustrate the very provision of the Act, 1950, the order passed by the Administrative Authority cannot be said to suffer from an error. It has further been submitted that if on that pretext, the learned Single Judge has also declined to interfere with the impugned order, the same also cannot be said to suffer from an error. It has further been submitted that if on that pretext, the learned Single Judge has also declined to interfere with the impugned order, the same also cannot be said to suffer from an error. The contention has been made that so far as the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that rent has been paid but it would be evident from the record that the rent has not been paid regularly, rather, for a bulk period, has been paid by way of lumpsum and hence, it cannot be said that the settlement so claimed for claiming the title over the land in question which can be said to be made on the basis of the provision as contained under the Act, 1950. The learned State Counsel, on the basis of the aforesaid fact, has submitted that the learned Single Judge if after taking into consideration these facts, if declined to interfere with the impugned decision, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 6. The fact which is not in dispute in this case is that the land in question claimed to have been settled in the name of Sri K.B.N. Singh on 16.04.1948. It is evident from the material available on record that the land in question i.e., Kamre Mauza being portion of R.S. Plot No.1051 appertaining to Khata No.60, Plot No.549, Area 1.25 acre and Plot No.1051, Area 10.80 acre, was recorded as gairmazarua parti pathaar in the revisional survey khatiyan. The appellants claim title over the land in question in favour of Babu Krishna Ballabh Narayan Singh vide registered deed no.2068 dated 16.04.1948. In the year, 1961 Shri Krishna Ballabh Narayan Singh transferred the land in question in favour of Mrs. Bhameshwari Devi W/o Shri Sidheshwar Pd. Singh vide relinquishment registered deed dated 27.04.1961. The said Smt. Bhameshwari Devi transferred the land to Abdul Hafiz S/o Late Abdul Rahman, Manzoor Ansari C/o Md. Ismail and Md. Ismile S/o Md. Seikh Raza vide registered sale deed dated 16.08.1988, who on the same date transferred the land in question in the name of “Nilanchal Sahkari Grih Nirman Sahyog Samiti”. Singh vide relinquishment registered deed dated 27.04.1961. The said Smt. Bhameshwari Devi transferred the land to Abdul Hafiz S/o Late Abdul Rahman, Manzoor Ansari C/o Md. Ismail and Md. Ismile S/o Md. Seikh Raza vide registered sale deed dated 16.08.1988, who on the same date transferred the land in question in the name of “Nilanchal Sahkari Grih Nirman Sahyog Samiti”. The land was mutated in the name of Samiti vide order daed 28.08.1990 passed by the Circle Officer, Kanke in mutation case no.324R-27 in the year 1990-91. This samiti divided the land into various plots and sold it to different persons through registered sale deeds and they also got their name mutated in revenue records. The petitioners, therefore, claim on the basis of the aforesaid background that the land in question has become Chapparbandi settlement in favour of Babu Krishna Ballabh Narayan Singh. The said Krishna Ballabh Narayan Singh has sold out the land in favour of subsequent purchaser through the registered sale deed and they have also got the land mutated. But, contention has been raised on behalf of the opposite parties that reliance is being placed in the order passed in Compensation Case No.RA 55-56 but the same cannot be believed because no documentary evidence has been given in support of their claim. The further ground has been taken that the rent receipts filed by the O.Ps have been found to be false on verification from the Anchal Office. Spot inspection by the Circle Officer, Kanke revealed that the only structure existing on a part of this land is a building belonging to Primary Harijan Residential School, Kamre. Rest of the land is vacant. There was no sign to suggest that any private individual ever claim in possession over it. The proceeding has been initiated by the competent authority by taking recourse of power conferred under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950, T.R. No.79R 15/2000-01 being case no.1/97 and the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi after taking into consideration the fact that the alleged settlement of the land in question by the landlord on 16.04.1948 is quite suspicious and seems to have been done to cause loss to the Government, therefore, the transfer and all subsequent demands opened in respect of the land in question have been ordered to be cancelled in exercise of power conferred under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950. The aforesaid order has been challenged by the writ petitioners by filing an appeal before the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi being Ranchi Misc. Appeal No.067/2002 but the appellate authority has also refused to interfere with order dated 20.08.2002. Being aggrieved with both the orders, the writ petitioners have filed writ petition being W.P.(C) No.353 of 2003 but the same has also been dismissed, against which, the present appeal. 7. The contention has been raised on behalf of the appellants that the settlement since has been made on 16.04.1948 coupled with the demand and thereafter, the land has been transferred in favour of Sri K.B.N. Singh on the basis of the settlement made by ex-landlord, even though, he came in possession but the finding has been given that the said Sri. K.B.N. Singh has never come in the possession of the property. The further contention has been made that the learned Single Judge has not considered the fact that the land since has been settled in favour of Sri K.B.N. Singh and hence, the same cannot be said to be Gair mazaruwa in view of the fact that the regular rent was paid and in lieu thereof, the rent receipts have been issued. 8. While on the other hand, the State has contended that the land admittedly claimed to have been settled in favour of the said Sri K.B.N. Singh on 16.04.1948 which was after 01.01.1946, the cut-off date provided under Section 4(h) and if in that pretext, the inquiry has been conducted by the Deputy Commissioner in pursuance to the power conferred under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950, basis upon which, if the conclusion has been arrived at regarding the illegal settlement of the land only for the purpose to frustrate the very provision of the Act, 1950, the order passed by the Administrative Authority cannot be said to suffer from an error. 9. This Court, after taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions and before looking into the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment, deems it fit and proper to deal with the scope of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 vis-à-vis Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. 9. This Court, after taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions and before looking into the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment, deems it fit and proper to deal with the scope of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 vis-à-vis Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. It is evident from the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 that when the intermediary system has been abolished with effect from 01.01.1956 by virtue of the provision of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 the provision has been made so that the object and intent of the enactment of the Act may not be frustrated as because it had been witnessed by the authority at that time which led enactment of the said legislation that the landlords were using to settle the land in favour of their family members and therefore, in order to deal with such situation a provision has been inserted as Section 4 (h) which confers power upon the Deputy Commissioner to conduct an enquiry to deal with such situation by making out a cut-off date i.e. 01.01.1946 whereby, if any settlement has been made after 01.01.1946 the same shall be subject to enquiry. The question of valid settlement has been raised that how the settlement would be said to be proper, this aspect of the matter fell for consideration before the Special Bench of the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Mt. Ugni & Anr. Vrs. Chowa Mahto & Ors., reported in AIR 1968 Patna 302, wherein the Special Bench of the Hon’ble Patna High Court has been pleased to hold that unregistered hukumnama, though admissible, could be looked into to show the nature and character of possession. Oral evidence of the terms of the lease will not be admissible but, independent of the hukumnama, the rent receipts themselves indicate the rate of rent, the area and the nature of the right of the lessee. Hence, independent of the hukumnama, the terms of the raiyati settlement were inferrible from other pieces of evidence. The Special Bench of the Patna High Court, on the basis of the aforesaid observation, has given a finding of the view taken by the concerned Court to the effect that by virtue of sada hukumnama raiyati title cannot be conferred but a sada hukumnama coupled with rent receipts or even an oral settlement coupled with rent receipts would confer good title. After enactment of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 has been enacted to provide for maintenance of dates for records of Raiyats in the State of Bihar and the matter connected therewith. Under the said provision the competency upon the authority has been conferred to act as an original mutating authority, power to that effect has been vested upon the Anchal Adhikari who after requisition of the concern may exercise power under Section 14 of the Act, 1973. It needs to refer here that since one of the points urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the Act, 1973 has been enacted there is no question of initiating a proceeding under Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 and in order to answer the same, the proceeding under Section 30 of the Act, 1973 which provides that the Act 1973 will not prevail over the other laws rather the provision of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provision contained in any other law for the time being in force. This provision suggests that the provision of Act, 1973 is having no effect of any enactment like that of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. There is no doubt that when an Act provides, as here, that its provision shall be in addition to an no in derogation of any law or laws, it means that the legislature intends that such an enactment shall co-exists along with the other Acts. The issue of in addition to and not in derogation of has been discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Constitutional Bench Judgment in the case of KSL and Industries Limited vs. Arihant Threads Limited and Ors. reported in (2015) 1 SCC 166 wherein at paragraph 36 thereof it has been held therein which reads as under: “36. …… There is no doubt that when an Act provides, as here, that its provisions shall be in addition to an not in derogation of another law or laws, it means that the legislature intends that such an enactment shall coexist along with the other Acts. It is clearly not the intention of the legislature, in such a case, to annul or detract from the provisions of other laws. The term “in derogation of’ means “in abrogation or repeal of’. It is clearly not the intention of the legislature, in such a case, to annul or detract from the provisions of other laws. The term “in derogation of’ means “in abrogation or repeal of’. The Black’s Law Dictionary sets forth the following meaning for “derogation”. “derogation.-The partial repeal or abrogation of a law by a later Act that limits its scope or impairs its utility and force. …..” So far the scope of BLR Act, 1950 and Act, 1973 both are having different fields, on the one hand BLR Act, 1950 is to regularize the land reforms movement at that time by dealing with the Jamabandi system while the Act 1973 provides to maintain the record up to date and therefore, it cannot be said that if the provision of Act, 1973 has been made whereby and whereunder the power has been conferred upon the Anchal Adhikari to create mutation in favour of the person who has made requisition to create it and if any illegality has been committed in course of creation of mutation, which if found to be contrary to the BLR Act, 1950 the proceeding can be initiated by resorting to the provision as contained in Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. 10. This Court is now proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the order in the premise of the provision of Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 and the law laid down by the Special Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Mt. Ugni & Anr. Vrs. Chowa Mahto & Ors. (supra). Admittedly herein, the land claimed to have been settled on 16.04.1948 which is after 01.01.1946. Section 4(h) confers power upon the concerned authority, the Deputy Commissioner to conduct an inquiry to deal with such situation by making out a cut-off date, i.e., 01.01.1946 in order to verify as to whether such settlement has been made in order to frustrate the very object and intent of the Act, 1950. Section 4(h) confers power upon the concerned authority, the Deputy Commissioner to conduct an inquiry to deal with such situation by making out a cut-off date, i.e., 01.01.1946 in order to verify as to whether such settlement has been made in order to frustrate the very object and intent of the Act, 1950. For ready reference, Section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 reads as under:- “(h) The Collector shall have power to make inquiries in respect of any transfer including the settlement or lease of any land comprised in such estate or tenure or the transfer of any kind of interest in any building used primarily as office or cutchery for the collection of rent of such estate or tenure or part thereof, and if he satisfied that such transfer was made [at any time after the first day of January, 1946, with the object of defeating any provisions of this Act or causing loss to the State or obtaining higher compensation there under the Collector may, after giving reasonable notice to the parties concerned to appear and be heard annul such transfer, dispossess the persons claiming under it and take possession of such property on such terms as may appear to the Collector to be fair and equitable.] [Provided that an appeal against an order of the Collector under this clause if preferred within sixty days of such order, shall lie to the prescribed authority not below the rank of the Collector of a district who shall dispose of the same according to the prescribed procedure:] Provided further that no order annulling a transfer shall take effect nor shall possession be taken in pursuance of it unless such an order has been confirmed by the State Government.] [Provided that an appeal against an order of the Collector under this clause if preferred within sixty days of such order, shall lie to the prescribed authority not below the rank of the Collector of a district who shall dispose of the same according to the prescribed procedure:] Provided further that no order annulling a transfer shall take effect nor shall possession be taken in pursuance of it unless such an order has been confirmed by the State Government.]” So far as the facts of the given case is concerned that an inquiry was conducted, basis upon which, a proceeding was initiated by the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioners have appeared and substantiated their claim on the basis of the settlement so made in favour of Sri K.B.N. Singh on 16.04.1948 as also the demand/rent receipt issued by the State Government. But the aforesaid contention has been rejected by the Deputy Commissioner by taking into consideration the fact that the land has been settled in favour of Sri K.B.N. Singh by virtue of order passed in Compensation Case No.RA 55-56 but the same has been disbelieved in absence of any documentary evidence filed in support of their claim. Further, the rent receipts filed by the O.Ps have been found to be false on verification from the Anchal Officer. The Spot inspection was conducted by the Circle Officer, Kanke in which it was revealed that the only structure existing on a part of this land is a building belonging to Primary Harijan Residential School, Kamre. Rest of the land is vacant as also there was no sign to suggest that any private individual ever claim in possession over it. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner has considered the transfer and subsequent demand opened in respect of the land in question to be not proper and as such, ordered to cancel the same in exercise of power conferred under Section 4(h). The said order has also been affirmed by the appellate authority. The contention which has been raised on behalf of the writ petitioners that the settlement is based upon the demand/rent receipts issued by the competent authority but it would be evident from the document appended to the paper book that rent receipts were issued from the year 1963 to 1965 and thereafter there are no rent receipts. Further, it appears from the material available on record that the rent receipts have been issued after the year, 1965, in the year 1990-91. But, the settlement is being claimed from the year, 1948 but thereafter, no rent receipts are there, save and except, the rent receipts for the year 1963 to 1965. There are no rent receipts upto the year 1990 to 1991, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Special Bench of the Patna High Court in the above case, the genuineness of the settlement if on that pretext has been doubted by the revenue authorities, which according to our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from an error. Further, the learned Single Judge has also disbelieved the settlement said to have been done on 16.04.1948 on the basis of the fact that the claim of the appellants for claiming the title over the land in question by virtue of settlement made by the landlord in favour of Sri K.B.N. Singh on 16.04.1948, which has been considered to be much before coming into force of Bihar land Reforms Act, 1950 and thereafter, Sri K.B.N. Singh came in possession of the said property, but the learned Single Judge has found from the material available on record that there is no evidence that Sri K.B.N. Singh ever came in possession of the property involved in this case. The said finding is based upon the report of the Circle Officer, Kanke. The further finding has been arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the rent receipts filed by the writ petitioners, appended as Annexure-15 to the writ petition, were also found to be false after verification from the office of the Circle Officer. The appellate authority has also given a finding that there is no evidence on record that Sri K.B.N. Singh ever came in possession of the property involved in this case. 11. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspects and the legal position as above and coming to the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge has found that the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the provision of Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950, considering the genuineness of the settlement to be suspicious, since, no documentary evidence has been produced, save and except the rent receipts but the said rent receipts have also found to be forged by the revenue authority and even no physical possession of the said K.B.N. Singh has ever been found as per the report of the Circle Officer, Kanke. The learned Single Judge, further after taking into consideration the applicability of the judgment reported in 1987 BLT (Rep.) 217 and the judgment rendered in the case of Sri Rama Prasad Singh & Ors. Vrs. The learned Single Judge, further after taking into consideration the applicability of the judgment reported in 1987 BLT (Rep.) 217 and the judgment rendered in the case of Sri Rama Prasad Singh & Ors. Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1990 1 PLJR 165 have distinguished the aforesaid judgments on its applicability in the facts and circumstances of the case, which according to our considered view, the said judgments have rightly been distinguished holding it not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, since, in those judgments the settlement was said to be made after 01.01.1946, if the person concerned claiming the title over the land in question by virtue of settlement was found in possession of the disputed property, paying rent throughout and the settlement was acted upon by the government by accepting rent. 12. We are required to refer herein that reference of judgment which has been referred by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, reported in 1987 BLT (Rep.) 217, but we have not found any judgment as per the reference made and referred in the impugned order. However, we have considered the judgment on the same issue as has been discussed by the learned Single Judge while making reference of the judgment reported in 1987 BLT (Rep.) 217, has found the same in the judgment rendered in the case of Sri Rama Prasad Singh & Ors. Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (supra), wherein, the settlement was made in the year, 1945, i.e., before the cut-off date of 01.01.1946 and it was held that the said settlement was beyond the scope of Section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. 13. This Court, after coming to the facts of this case as has been discussed by the learned Single Judge regarding applicability of the said judgments has found therefrom that the land herein said to have been settled on 16.04.1948, but, the said settlement is not coupled with any continuous rent receipts, the continuous possession by the concerned settlee as also the settlement has been made after 01.01.1946, therefore, if on such consideration, the learned Single Judge has come to conclusion about applicability of the aforesaid judgments, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error. 14. 14. The scope of judicial review in quashing the order passed by the revenue authority in exercise of power of issuance of Writ of Certiorari, wherein, the High Court has been conferred with a very limited power, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Syed Yakoob Vrs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Ors., A.I.R. 1964 Supreme Court 477, wherein at paragraph no.7 Their Lordships have been pleased to hold as follows:- “7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals : these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal Acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised (vide Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque, 1955-1 SCR 1104 : ((S) AIR 1955 SC 233 ); Nagendra Nath v. Commr. Of Hills Division, 1958 SCR 1240 : ( AIR 1958 SC 398 ) and Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh, AIR 1960 SC 1168 . Reference in this regard also may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and Ors., AIR 1955 Supreme Court 233, it has been held at Paragraph-21, as hereunder : “…….as to the character and scope of the writ of ‘certiorari’ and the conditions under which it could be issued. The question has been considered by this Court in ‘Parry and Co. v. Commercial Employees’ Association, Madras,’ AIR 1952 SC 179 (L):-‘Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Ltd.’ AIR 1952 SC 192 (M); ‘Ebrahim Aboobaker v. Custodian General of Evacuee Property New Delhi,’ AIR 1952 SC 319 (N), and quite recently in AIR 1954 SC 440 (C). On these authorities, the following propositions may be taken as established: (1) ‘Certiorari’ will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. (2) Writ of certiorari will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice. (2) Writ of certiorari will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice. (3) The Court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the Court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal even if they be erroneous. This is on the principle that a Court which has jurisdiction over a subject-matter has jurisdiction to decide wrong as well as right, and when the Legislature does not choose to confer a right of appeal against that decision, it would be defeating its purpose and policy, if a superior Court were to rehear the case on the evidence and substitute its own findings in “certiorari”…….” In another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sawarn Singh and Anr. Vrs. State of Punjab and Ors., (1976) 2 SCC 868 their Lordships while discussing the power of writ under Article 226 for issuance of writ of certiorari has been pleased to hold at paragraph nos.12 and 13 as under: “12. Before dealing with the contentions canvassed, it will be useful to notice the general principles indicating the limits of the jurisdiction of the certiorari jurisdiction can be exercised only for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals. A writ of certiorari can be issued only in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction which is different from appellate jurisdiction. The Court exercising special jurisdiction under Article 226 is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. As was pointed out by this Court in Syed Yakoob's case (supra)……… 13. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by an inferior tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued only if in recording such a finding, the tribunal has acted on evidence which is legally inadmissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all, because in such cases the error amounts to an error of law. The writ jurisdiction extends only to cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals in excess of their jurisdiction or as a result of their refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in them or they act illegally or improperly in the exercise of their jurisdiction causing grave miscarriage of justice.” 15. This Court, after taking into consideration the scope of power of judicial review in showing interference of the decision taken by the revenue authority is of the view that the finding so recorded since is based upon the settlement itself has been doubted in absence of non-availability of continuous rent receipts, no possession over the land in question by the settlee, namely, K.B.N. Singh as per the report of the Circle Officer, Kanke, therefore on that ground also, the order impugned requires no interference. 16. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 17. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.