Order : Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. Both these writ petitions have been preferred against the order passed in Revenue Revision Nos.33/96 and 36/95 by the learned Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh on 16.07.2002, as such, both are being heard together and disposed of by this common order/judgment. 2. In W.P.(C) No. 817 of 2003 , the petitioner challenges a portion of the revisional order passed by Respondent No. 2 in Chatra Revenue Revision No. 33 of 1996, insofar as it accepts the claim only with respect to 7 acres of land and rejects the claim over the remaining 7 acres. 3. Petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 4484 of 2002 are the heirs and descendants of Haro Mistry in whose name, land measuring area of 12.45 acres under different plots of Khata No.50, Mauza Nongawn, P.S. Gidhor was recorded. The said land was settled in his name and since the rent was not fixed after vesting, the petitioners applied before the Circle Officer, Itkhori for fixation of rent of land and issuance of rent receipts which were registered as Miscellaneous Revenue Nos.5/78-79 and 4/78-79 and objection being raised by Respondent nos.6,7 and 8, the matter was referred to LRDC Chatra wherein Misc. Case 4/79-80/16/86-87 and Misc. case no.5/78- 79/15/86-87 were registered and disposed of, with direction on 30.07.87 to maintain status quo. Petitioners moved before the Additional Collector against the said order which were registered as Misc. Case 36/95 and 37/95 which were decided in his favour and directed the rent to be accepted from the Petitioners. 4. This order has been reversed in the revision, against which the instant Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No. 4484 of 2002 has been filed. The order passed in Revenue Revision Case No.33 of 1996 dated 16.07.2002 is under-challenge on the following grounds:- Firstly, the learned Revisional Court in the Cause Title has referred to only Revenue Revision Case No.33 of 1996, but other related cases, namely, Revenue Revision Case Nos.34 of 1996, 35 of 1996, 52 of 1996, 53 of 1996 and 155 of 1995 have been decided by the common order. Secondly, it is contended that the dispute is with respect to land measuring 12.45 acres of Khata Nos.50 & 63 of Village- Nongaon, P.S. Gidhour (Itkhori) under District- Chatra. Secondly, it is contended that the dispute is with respect to land measuring 12.45 acres of Khata Nos.50 & 63 of Village- Nongaon, P.S. Gidhour (Itkhori) under District- Chatra. Petitioner claims the land on the basis of inheritance as the same was recorded as belagan Bakasth in the revisional survey record of rights in the name of Ranglal Mistri (ancestors of the petitioner).Whereas, the respondents claim it on the basis of registered Kabuliyat executed by the ex-landlord in the year 1937 for 4.52 acres of land under Khata Nos.58 and 63. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner(s) that the registered Kabuliyat was disbelieved in the order passed by the Circle Officer as well as in the order passed by the Addl. Collector for the reasons stated therein. However, the Revisional Court has not assigned any reason differing with the findings recorded by the learned Courts below in its order while accepting the registered kabuliyat. Thirdly it is argued that even if the registered Kabuliyat is accepted for 4.52 acres of land, rent assessment could not have been made for remaining seven acres of land in Revenue Revision Case Nos.52 of 1996 and 53 of 1996 on the basis of sada hukumama. Lastly, it is submitted that the said registered Kabuliyat was not brought before both the Courts below and for the first time, it was brought at the time of argument in the revisional Court as the same will be evident from the revisional order, therefore, the petitioners were deprived from controverting the same. 5. Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned Sr. counsel for the Respondent No.6 has submitted that the land, in question, was not Belagan as the same will be apparent from the copy of Khewat filed by the other set of respondents by way of supplementary affidavit on 02.07.2025 wherein there is definite assessment of land. Therefore, the plea that the land being Belagan could not have been auctioned, is not sustainable. 6. It is contended that on non-payment of rent, land was surrendered and then settled in favour of ancestors of Respondent No.6 by the proprietor of land. 7. From perusal of the counter affidavit dated 21.07.2003 filed by respondent no. 9 in W.P.(C) No. 4484 of 2002, it would be evident that the settlement was made by way of kabuliyat only with respect to 4.52 acres of land appertaining to Khata Nos. 7. From perusal of the counter affidavit dated 21.07.2003 filed by respondent no. 9 in W.P.(C) No. 4484 of 2002, it would be evident that the settlement was made by way of kabuliyat only with respect to 4.52 acres of land appertaining to Khata Nos. 155, Plot Nos.58 and 63. 8. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners that settlement of 14 acres of land was made in the name of Chhedi Mahto in the year, 1934 with respect to Khata Nos. 50 and 63. After the said settlement, revenue receipts were issued and the copy(s) of which has been filed, but these documents were not accepted by the revisional Court and only 7 acres of land was accepted to have been settled in the name of Chedi Mahto in Revisional Case No. 52 of 1996 and 53 of 1996. 9. Learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 9 in both the cases has submitted that they are heirs and descendants of Bajo Gope who had purchased 1.93 acres of land in Khata No. 63 and 2.59 acres of land of Khata No. 58 of Village-Nongawn in Certificate Case No. 196/1935-36. The copy of said purchase certificate has been annexed as Annexure-C to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 9. 10. Having considered the submissions on behalf of both sides and on perusing the materials on record, this Court is of the view that so far as claim of respondent no. 9 is concerned, it is based on an auction- purchase executed in Certificate Case No. 196/1935-36 and the copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-C. 11. From perusal of the order passed in this case, it is evident that 2.59 acres of land of Khata No. 58 of Village-Nongawn was purchased by Bajo Gope and 1.93 acres of land was purchased by him in the said case in Khata No. 63. The auction purchase certificate has been filed, and at this stage, the transfer of property in the name of the ancestors of respondent no. 9 cannot be questioned as the order passed in certificate case had attained finality. 12. So far, the case of the petitioner(s) in W.P. (C) No. 817 of 2003 with regard to respondent no. The auction purchase certificate has been filed, and at this stage, the transfer of property in the name of the ancestors of respondent no. 9 cannot be questioned as the order passed in certificate case had attained finality. 12. So far, the case of the petitioner(s) in W.P. (C) No. 817 of 2003 with regard to respondent no. 6 is concerned is that, there are conflicting findings with regard to the veracity of the sada hukumnama by which part of the land claimed to be settled has been accepted. Learned Revisional Court has not dealt with this matter and has decided the entire case without meeting the reasonings of the Appellate Court. 13. In this view of matter, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Revisional Court to decide afresh within twelve weeks from the date of appearance of the parties. 14. All the parties are directed to appear before the Revisional Court on 28.07.2025. In the event of the non-appearance of any of the party, the Revisional Court will proceed as per law under Order XVII of the C.P.C. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. Pending I.A., if any also stands disposed of.