JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P (C) No. 7845 of 2013. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment had confirmed the order dated 24.10.2003 passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka in Revenue Miscellaneous Revision No. 19/1984-85 which itself was preferred against the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Deoghar in Revenue Miscellaneous Appeal No. 26/1983-84 dated 30.11.1984. 2. Before the learned Single Judge, it was contended by the appellants that their father was landless person and he was settled the subject property by the Bhudan Yagan Committee on 29.08.1980, but the said settlement was challenged by the respondent no. 8 by filing an appeal before the respondent no. 4, who remitted the matter by passing an order on 30.09.1982. Thereafter, a fresh order was passed by the respondent no. 5 on 10.03.1983 rejecting the claim of the father of the appellants. Though the appellants challenged this before the appellate authority, the appeal was dismissed on 30.11.1984 and was confirmed in revision by the Commissioner on 24.10.2003. 3. Ten years later, W.P.(C) No. 7845 of 2013 was filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 24.10.2003. 4. The learned Single Judge, however, declined to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner on 24.10.2003 on the ground that the property involved in the case was of common use for the villagers and the authorities under the statute have rightly held against the appellants’ father and there was no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. 5. Though, counsel for the appellants sought to contend that the order of the learned Single Judge and that of the appellate authority passed on 30.11.1984 and of the revisional authority dated 24.10.2003 warrant interference in Letters Patent Jurisdiction, admittedly the appellants had challenged the order dated 24.10.2003 of the Commissioner ten years later by filing the writ petition being W.P (C) No. 7845 of 2013. 6. At this point of time i.e, 21 years after the dismissal of the Commissioner’s order and almost 40 years from the appellate order, we do not think it is appropriate to again consider the matter on merits and disturb the status quo which has been prevailing all along for the last 40 years. 7. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal, accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. No Cost.