ORDER : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar in Revenue Miscellaneous Appeal No.47 of 1995-96, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners and upholding the order dated 16.05.1995 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Madhupur in Settlement Case No. 22 of 1991-92, whereby the land appertaining to Jamabandi No.42, Plot No.848, Mouza Bhalgarha, measuring an area of 01 acre out of 2.22 acres (hereinafter referred as the said land) was settled in favour of the respondent no.7. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said land stands recorded as “Parti Pathal” in the last survey settlement i.e. Gantzer’s Settlement. The respondent no.7 filed an application before the Sub Divisional Officer, Madhupur for settlement of the said land which was registered as Settlement Case No. 22 of 1991-92. In the said case the Circle Officer, Karon submitted enquiry report and thereafter the Sub Divisional Officer, Madhupur passed the order dated 16.05.1995 allowing settlement of the said land in favour of the respondent no.7. 3. It is further submitted that no notice was served to the 16 Anna Raiyats of the said mouza and the respondent no.7 in connivance with the revenue officials got the said land settled in his favour. The petitioners filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar (respondent no. 3) which was registered as R.M.A Case No. 47 of 1995-96, however the same was dismissed vide order dated 10.10.2017 upholding the order dated 16.05.1995. 4. It is also submitted that respondent nos.3 and 4 have failed to take note of the fact that possession over the waste land cannot be a ground of settlement as a person becomes entitled to possess and reclaim the waste land only after its settlement. The respondent no.7 has more than 2 acres of landed property at Bhalgarha mouza and as such he was not entitled to be settled the said land. Moreover, the petitioners and others have reclaimed some portion of the said land by amalgamating the same with their land which has been developed as “Dhani” and “Bari” and are in possession of the same. 5. Moreover, the petitioners and others have reclaimed some portion of the said land by amalgamating the same with their land which has been developed as “Dhani” and “Bari” and are in possession of the same. 5. The learned counsel for the State respondents submits that if the petitioners were aggrieved with the order of the respondent no.3, they should have taken appropriate recourse by filing revision/appeal before the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana, Dumka under the provisions of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949. In fact, the respondent no. 4 had issued notice to 16 anna raiyats of Mouza Bhalgarha, which was duly served to them by the process server, however, they chose not to raise any objection with respect to the said settlement. Otherwise also, the petitioners have no right, title, interest and possession over the said land. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 7. Thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no notice was issued/served to 16 Anna Raiyats before making settlement of the said land in favour of the respondent no. 7 and as such on this score alone, the said settlement is liable to be vitiated. 8. To appreciate the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court has perused the order passed by the respondent no.4 in Settlement Case No.22 of 1991-92, wherein it has been recorded that notice was served to the 16 Anna Raiyats calling for objection (if any) on their behalf however no objection was received from them. 9. It has further been observed that the Circle Officer, Karon submitted the enquiry report stating that the respondent no.7, a landless raiyat, was residing on the said land by making a house and was also cultivating the part of the same. The respondent no.3 also while dismissing the appeal of the petitioners has observed that the said land was lawfully settled in favour of the respondent no.7. It has further been observed that the respondent no.7 was in occupation of the said land by constructing a house over part of the same and cultivating remaining part of the land. 10. The State respondents have annexed a copy of the order-sheet of Settlement Case No.22 of 1991-92 with their counter affidavit which reflects that the notice was issued to the 16 Anna Raiyats vide order dated 03.08.1991. 10. The State respondents have annexed a copy of the order-sheet of Settlement Case No.22 of 1991-92 with their counter affidavit which reflects that the notice was issued to the 16 Anna Raiyats vide order dated 03.08.1991. The report of the process server has also been annexed as Annexure-B to the counter affidavit wherein the process server has reported that he went to the said land and read the notice before the 16 anna raiyats and served one copy of the same to them. The report of the process server suggests that some of the 16 Anna Raiyats had also made signature/thumb impression on the said notice. 11. Though the petitioners have claimed that no notice was served to the 16 Anna Raiyats, they have failed to controvert the report of the process server by putting any contrary evidence on record. I am of the view that since no objection was filed by 16 Anna Raiyats in spite of service of notice to them, the respondent no.3 has rightly rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order passed by the respondent no.4 with respect to settlement of the said land in favour of the respondent no.7. 12. So far as the claim of the petitioners that the respondent no.7 was holding more than 2 acres of land in Mouza Bhalgarha, this Court has perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority & Others Vs. Kendriya Karamchari Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti & Others, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 524, wherein it has been held as under: - “ 13. In a petition under Article 226, the High Court has jurisdiction to try issues both of fact and law. When the petition raises complex questions of fact which may, for their determination, require oral evidence to be taken and on that account the High Court is of the view that the disputed statement may not be appropriately tried in a writ petition, the High Court should ordinarily decline to try the petition. 13. Thus, the disputed question of fact as raised by the petitioners cannot be entertained by this court in the writ jurisdiction, since the adjudication of the same requires leading of evidences by the parties. If the petitioners had appeared before the respondent no. 13. Thus, the disputed question of fact as raised by the petitioners cannot be entertained by this court in the writ jurisdiction, since the adjudication of the same requires leading of evidences by the parties. If the petitioners had appeared before the respondent no. 4 pursuant to the notice issued to 16 anna raiyats and had raised objection against the settlement of the said land in favour of the respondent no.7 with the sufficient evidence, the same would have appropriately been decided by the respondent no.4. 14. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the respondent no.3-Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar in Revenue Miscellaneous Appeal No.47 of 1995-96 so as to interfere with it under extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 15. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.