JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. In light of the order dated 18.09.2014, notice upon respondent no.4 has already been effected and, thereafter, this matter was adjourned on different dates, however, respondent no.4 has chosen not to appear and in that view of the matter, this writ petition is being heard in absence of respondent no.4. 2. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State. 3. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 21.01.2012 passed by respondent no.2 in R.M.R. No.344 of 1994-95, whereby, the order dated 17.06.1994 passed by respondent no.3 in R.E. Case No.96 of 1994 has been set-aside with a direction to take appropriate steps for eviction of the petitioners from the lands in question. 4. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the lands appertaining to Plot No.902 under Khata No.80 in Mouza- Deodanr, Mouza No.190, now in the district of Godda was originally recorded in the Records of Rights in the name of Sukhan Mandal, who died leaving behind his son Dugai Mandal. Ultimately, Dugai Mandal also died leaving behind Most. Felli Devi, who was issueless. He further submits that on 18.04.1934, Most. Felli, widow of Late Dugai Mandal executed Kurfanama in favour of original petitioner no.1 and the fathers of petitioner nos. 2 to 10 in respect of one bigha sixteen kathas and fifteen chhataks being the portion of Plot No.902, Khata No.80 of Mouza Deodanr. He submits that pursuant to such Kurfanama, the original petitioner no.1 as well as the fathers of petitioner nos. 2 to 10 came in peaceful possession thereof. He then submits that on 02.02.1962, Most. Felli made an application before the Sarpanch of Village- Deodarn with a prayer for taking steps against the original petitioner no.1 as well as fathers of petitioner nos. 2 to 10, however, by the order dated 27.02.1962, the Sarpanch disposed of the matter by observing that the matter has been settled between the parties. He next submits that on 27.02.1962, Most. Felli filed an application before Sarpanch Gram Kutchery- Deodanr admitting the acquisition of right by the petitioners, their ancestors and their continuous possession. He also submits that original petitioner no.1 and fathers of petitioner nos. He next submits that on 27.02.1962, Most. Felli filed an application before Sarpanch Gram Kutchery- Deodanr admitting the acquisition of right by the petitioners, their ancestors and their continuous possession. He also submits that original petitioner no.1 and fathers of petitioner nos. 2 to 10 jointly filed an application before the Circle Officer, Poraiyahat for mutation of their names in respect of the said land which was registered as Mutation Case No.3/2010 of 1968-69. He submits that in that case, notices were issued vide order dated 09.07.1968 and in pursuance thereof on 24.09.1968, Most. Felli submitted her no objection in the said mutation case and ultimately vide order dated 24.12.1968, the then Circle Officer, Poraiyahat allowed the prayer for mutation in favour of original petitioner no.1 and the fathers of petitioner nos. 2 to 10. According to him, the said order of mutation was never challenged. He further submits that in light of the order dated 17.06.1994 in R.E. Case No.96 of 1994 after hearing both the parties, respondent no.3 observed that the land in question is not agricultural land, rather it is residential one and by the said order, it was held that the petitioners are not liable to be evicted. He then submits that against the order dated 17.06.1994 passed by respondent no.3, Most. Felli and respondent no.4 jointly filed a revision petition being R.M.R. No.344 of 1994- 95 before respondent no.2. He submits that in that case, the petitioners appeared, however, due to miscommunication of date, the petitioners had not represented on the next fixed date. He submits that on 25.10.1998, a petition was filed on behalf of respondent no.4 intimating that Most. Felli died leaving behind him as her sole heir. He submits that the said substitution petition was allowed in favour of respondent no.4. He next submits that Most. Felli died issueless and respondent no.4 is having no relation with her and in spite of that, substitution petition was allowed. He also submits that in the School Leaving Certificate, the father’s name of respondent no.4 is shown as Late Dhirendra Nath Mandal. He submits that on 25.01.2012, the petitioners filed an application in Revenue Misc. Revision (R.M.R.) No.344 of 1994-95 with a prayer to give opportunity of hearing to them. He also submits that in the School Leaving Certificate, the father’s name of respondent no.4 is shown as Late Dhirendra Nath Mandal. He submits that on 25.01.2012, the petitioners filed an application in Revenue Misc. Revision (R.M.R.) No.344 of 1994-95 with a prayer to give opportunity of hearing to them. He next submits that by the impugned order dated 21.01.2012, respondent no.2 allowed the said revision petition and set-aside the order passed by respondent no.3 with a direction to evict the petitioners from the land in question. He submits that long standing Jamabandi has already been created and by the impugned order it has been disturbed, which is not in accordance with law. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set-aside. He relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Deonarayan Singh and others v. The Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division and others , reported in 1985 PLJR 1 . He further relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Dineshwar Prasad v. State of Jharkhand and others , reported in 2008 (3) JCR 639 (Jhr) . He also relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Abdul Hamid Ansari and others v. State of Jharkhand and others reported in 2010 (1) JCR 159 (Jhr) 5. On the other hand, Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that Plot No.902 of Jamabandi No.80 of Mouza Deodanr Thana No.190, P.S. Poraiyahat, Sub Division and District- Godda stands recorded in the name of Sukhan Mandal and Feli Devi, wife of Dugai Mandal and Ujjwal Mandal, son of Dugai Mandal are heirs and successors of recorded tenants. He further submits that the petitioners have claimed that they have obtained the lands from the heirs of recorded tenant on 18.04.1934 through Kurfanama, which is totally false and fabricated. He submits that the petitioners have manufactured this forged and fabricated Kurfanama said to have been executed on 18.04.1934. He then submits that in Mutation Case No.03/2010 of 1968-69, there was compromise between the parties in which it was admitted that the said Kurfanama was executed some time 8-9 years back which proves that Kurfanama was executed in the year 1953-54 and that has also come in the order of the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka. He next submits that the Circle Officer was not competent for grant mutation of non-transferable agricultural land. He next submits that the Circle Officer was not competent for grant mutation of non-transferable agricultural land. By way of referring paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit, he submits that during the present survey operation, the petitioners were found in illegal possession over the said lands and, hence, R.E. Case No.96/1994 was started in the Court of Charge Officer, Survey Settlement, Dumka and the Charge Officer, Survey Settlement, Dumka relying upon the report of A.S.O., has passed the order on 17.06.1994 in R.E. Case No.96/94 to the effect that the nature of the land in question has been changed and it is not agricultural land now and, hence, the order was passed for recording the names of the petitioners in current survey settlement parcha. He submits that against the order dated 17.06.1994 passed by the Charge Officer, Dumka, Most. Feli Devi and Ujjal Kumar Mandal had filed Revision Misc. Revision No.344/1994-95 in the Court of Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka and vide order dated 21.01.2012, the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka set-aside the order dated 17.06.1994 passed by the Charge Officer, Dumka in R.E. Case No.96 of 1994. He next submits that the learned revisional court has found that there is no mention of Kurfanama deed of 1934. He has also found that the order of the Circle Officer is illegal in light of Section 20 of Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949 which bars the transfer of raiyat rights and the petitioners have also admitted before that Court that they were not in possession over the said land for 13-14 years and in view of that, the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka has passed the impugned order. He submits that in view of that, there is no illegality in the order passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka and, as such, this writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that not even a single chit of paper has been annexed with the present writ petition to suggests that how these petitioners have come in possession of the land in question. 6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that not even a single chit of paper has been annexed with the present writ petition to suggests that how these petitioners have come in possession of the land in question. Even if the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted that the order is ex-parte, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to at least annex certain documents to show their right, title and interest over the property in question. This writ petition is of the year 2012 and till date, the petitioners have not taken any endeavour to bring any document to that effect. 7. From perusal of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka, it transpires that so far as mutation is concerned, the documents pertaining to the same and the order passed by the Circle Officer is on the extent of the order of Sarpanch of Gram Poraiyahat, Deodanr, wherein, he has stated that Sri Baijnath Marwari and others were in possession of the said land since last 13-14 years, which means from 1955-56 AD., the Circle Officer has held that the possession was there for last 14 years as on 24.12.1968. 8. In the mutation proceeding, there is no mention of Kurfanama deed of the year 1934 as has been claimed by the petitioners herein. Only on the extent of the report of the Sarpanch, the mutation order has been passed. On the other hand, Section 20 of the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949 clearly bars transfer of raiyat right. The petitioners have contended which has come in the order of the Circle Officer that they were in possession for 14 years as on 24.12.1968 i.e. from 1954 and in view of that, the said order of the Circle Officer was not accepted by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division while passing the impugned order. 9. Further in the compromise petition in mutation case, Most. Felli has stated that original petitioner no.1 has admitted that they have executed Kurfanama sometime 8-9 years back which means Kurfanama was executed in the year 1953-54 and in light of the report of Sarpanch, it is also proved that they were in possession for 13-14 years. 10. 9. Further in the compromise petition in mutation case, Most. Felli has stated that original petitioner no.1 has admitted that they have executed Kurfanama sometime 8-9 years back which means Kurfanama was executed in the year 1953-54 and in light of the report of Sarpanch, it is also proved that they were in possession for 13-14 years. 10. The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka has rightly found that had the petitioners got Kurfanama executed in the year 1934, it would have appeared and shown to the Circle Officer in its mutation proceeding 3/10 of 1968-69. Even on the basis of report of the Assistant Settlement Officer, the possession was said to be from 1944 and not from 1934. No occupancy right based on adverse possession can be created. Section 27 (proviso)(a) of Santhal Pargana Settlement Regulation, 1872 did provide for creation of occupancy right based in continuing cultivating possession of 12 years, whereas, the petitioners were remain in possession only for five years. 11. The Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka has also found that there was nothing on record to suggest that nature of land was non- agriculture at the time of transfer. In light of Section 42 of the Act, 1949, the Deputy Commissioner is having certain power to pass such order, however, there is no order to that effect. 12. In light of the above, the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka has found that no occupancy right accrued to the petitioners as they have come in possession only in 1954 and Kurfanama executed in the year 1934 was found to be forged and bogus. 13. In that view of the matter, the Court finds that in absence of any documents, annexed with the present writ petition and considering the finding of the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka that Kurfanama executed in the year 1934 was forged one and even Kurfanama deed is not mentioned anywhere in the mutation order of the Circle Officer and in absence of any document further, it is difficult to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. 14. So far as the judgments relied by Mr. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are concerned, those judgments are not in dispute. 14. So far as the judgments relied by Mr. Sahani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are concerned, those judgments are not in dispute. It is well-known that in light of Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 long running jamabandi cannot be cancelled, however, if it is forged one, certainly rights are there to cancel the same. Reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Jharkhand & Others v. Izhar Hussain in L.P.A No.786 of 2018 which was affirmed upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, the judgments relied by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the cases of Dineshwar Prasad v. State of Jharkhand and Abdul Hamid Ansari v. State of Jharkhand (supra) are not helping the petitioners. 15. The law laid down by the Full Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Deonarayan Singh v. The Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division (supra) is not in dispute. There is no document to suggest the possession of the petitioners and finding of the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka is there that Kurfanama was not produced before the Circle Officer and in other proceedings and in view of that, the possession since 1934 was not found and the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate before this Court by way of producing Kurfanama or any chit of paper and in that view of the matter, the judgment passed in the case of Deonarayan Singh v. The Commissioner of Bhagalpur Division (supra) is not applicable in the case in hand. 16. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court finds that no case of interference is made out and, as such, this writ petition is dismissed. 17. Interim order, if any granted by this Court, is vacated.