JUDGMENT 1. The dispute relates to land measuring 1.73 acres comprised of Survey Plot No. 1181, Khata No. 44 under Raiti Khata No. 60 of village-Sudna, P.S. Daltonganj, District-Palamau. 2. In the year 1984-85, the respondent. Head Master, Sarboday Balika High School, Nawatoli, Daltonganj, District Palamau made an application for obtaining settlement of land before the Circle Officer, which was registered as Settlement Case No. 10/84-85. The petitioner-appellant also filed objection and prayed for fixation of rent in regard thereto in his name. The Circle Officer, on enquiry, rejected the claim of 6th respondent-School, vide order dated 13th December, 1984 and by another order dated 4th July, 1985 recommended for fixation of rent in the name of petitioner-appellant. 3. The 6th respondent-school being aggrieved preferred an appeal against the order, another appeal was preferred by the State which were registered as Misc. Appeal No. 15/85-86 and Misc. Appeal No. 92/86-87. Both the appeals were heard and disposed of by two different orders both dated 3rd October, 1992 in favour of the 6th respondent-school . 4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner-appellant preferred CWJC No. 3436 of 1992(R)--Uday Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors., against the orders both dated 3rd October, 1992 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 92/86-87 and Misc. Appeal No. 15/85-86. 5. The petitioner-appellant claimed right, title, interest and possession over the land and also pleaded that he was paying rent. This was opposed by the 6th respondent and State. Neither the right, title and interest of writ petitioner-appellant was accepted by them nor the claim of possession over the said land. 6. The learned single Judge taking into consideration the rival stand taken by the parties, observed that there was a serious dispute with regard to title in respect to the land, in question, and held that such disputed question of fact can be adjudicated by a civil Court of competent jurisdiction and not by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 7. Admittedly, the order was passed in a rent case i.e. in a case relating to mutation. 8. In a similar case of Sitaram Choubey v. State Bihar, reported in 1993 (2) PLJR 255, a Division Bench of this Court held that by reason of an entry in Register II, a person merely becomes entitled to deposit rent. 7. Admittedly, the order was passed in a rent case i.e. in a case relating to mutation. 8. In a similar case of Sitaram Choubey v. State Bihar, reported in 1993 (2) PLJR 255, a Division Bench of this Court held that by reason of an entry in Register II, a person merely becomes entitled to deposit rent. It is, therefore, difficult to apprehend as to how cancellation of Jamabandi would amount to cancellation of settlement, as it is well known that neither payment of rent creates title, nor non-payment extinguishes any such right. 9. In the present case, as the order passed by the one or other authority in no manner create any right and title nor extinguish right and title of one or other individual and there is a serious dispute of title in respect of land in question, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned single Judge on 14th December, 1999 in CWJC No. 3634 of 1992(R). 10. So far as possession over the land in question is concerned, it is a settled law that no person can be evicted except by an order of a competent court of law or the competent authority. 11. If any person is aggrieved, may move before a civil Court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of right, title and possession/or restoration of possession, as the case may be, if maintainable. 12. This appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and liberty. However, there shall be no order, as to costs.