JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This writ application has been preferred by the petitioner with three fold prayer : (A) For a declaration that the land denoted as Sub-Plot No. 1143/D measuring 5 (five) Kathas 2 (two) Chhataks 10 (ten) square feet from out of R.S. Plot No. 1143 under Khata No. 362 of village Missir Gonda purchased by the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 11.5.1990 was never a Government land and the Correction Slip in respect of the same was rightly and validly issued in the name of the petitioner in pursuance of order dated 23rd August, 1990 passed by the Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi in Mutation Case No. 1173 of 1990-91; (B) For a declaration that proceedings for cancellation of jamabandi standing in the name of the petitioner vide Correction Slip dated 23rd August, 1990, as initiated by the Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi, by registering Misc. Case No. 58 of 1991-92 was arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction; (C) For issuance of a writ of certiorari or direction commanding upon the respondents to certify and transmit records of Misc. Case No. 58 of 1991-92 of the Court of Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi so that notice for cancellation of jamabandi dated 31st May, 1991 (Annexure-9) and the orders dated 30th September, 1991; 2nd May, 1992; 25th May, 1992; and 17th July, 1992 passed by respondent Nos. 4, 3 and 2 respectively, all of which are contained in the order sheet collectively, as contained in (Annexure-9), may be quashed being arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction; and (D) For issuance of writ of or in the nature of certiorari or mandamus commanding the Additional Collector, Ranchi to certify and transmit records of Misc. Case No. 12 R 15 of 1992-93 so that the order of the 2nd respondent dated 29th October, 1999, as contained in Annexure-13 is set aside being arbitrary and discriminatory. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is in possession of the house property standing in and upon and comprised in the area of 5 (five Kathas 2 (two) Chhataks 10 (ten) square feel denoted as Sub-Plot No. 1143/D from out of R.S. Plot No. 1143 under Khata No. 362 of village Missir Gonda. The right of the petitioner are chhapparbandi right. The right of the petitioner are chhapparbandi right. The house property of the petitioner has been denoted and distinguished as Holding No. 277/E-4 under Ward No. 1 B (new Ward No. 1) of Ranchi Municipal Corporation and the name of the petitioner has been mutated in the records of Ranchi Municipal Corporation. Further case of the petitioner is that the land in question, was purchased by him by registered sale deed dated 11th May, 1990 and his name was mutated and shown in the records by Circle Officer, Ranchi after due and proper enquiry. But subsequently, his jamabandi was cancelled on the pretext that the R.S. Plot No. 1143 was a Government Land. According to the petitioner, C.S. Plot Nos. 601 to 605, 622, 623, 773 and 777 of village Missir Gonda measuring 33.31 acres were gairmajarua malik land of Satanath Missir and others, but in legal and prudent exercise of rights, the said landlord made chhaparbandi settlement in favour of one Gayanendra Nath Roy, Barrister-at-Law of Alipore, Calcutta as evident and established by a duly executed and registered deed of Kabuliat-cum-settlement dated 28th October, 1912 being No. 4209 of 1919 of the office of the District Sub-Registrar, Ranchi. After settlement as aforesaid, the settlee came in exclusive possession of the entire 53.31 acres and he continued to own and possess the same to the knowledge and exclusion of all. After the death of the aforesaid settlee, his only son and legal heir, namely, Arjun Roy inherited his estate including 53.31 acres of chhaparbandi lands in village Missir Gonda @ Pahar Gonda. The said entire tract of 53.31 acres of land was openly, exclusively and continuously owned and possessed by Arjun Roy, a renowned Architect and he constructed two houses which are architectural marvels and had become land marks of the town. The two buildings were known and called as "Aeroplane House" and "Ship House" and the same are still in existence, Arjun Roy all along paid rent to the then landlords and on abolition of zamindari to the State of Bihar. Further case of the petitioner is that during revisional survey and settlement operation, Arjun Roy was out of India (at England from 1927 to 1932) and, therefore, because of his absence, the settlement authorities could not get correct picture about the lands. Further case of the petitioner is that during revisional survey and settlement operation, Arjun Roy was out of India (at England from 1927 to 1932) and, therefore, because of his absence, the settlement authorities could not get correct picture about the lands. Basing on the entries in the C.S. Records, the lands settled with Gyanendra Nath Roy and inherited by Arjun Roy were entered in the R.S Records of rights as gairmajrua lands. The aforesaid C.S. Plot Nos. 601 to 605, 622, 623, 773 and 777 were renumbered as R.S. plot Nos. 933, 919, 934, 944, 969, 970, 972 to 974, 1140, 1141 and 1143 under Khata No. 362. Plot Nos. 971 and 1135 were recorded as gairmajrua aam lands while rest of the plots were recorded as gairmajrua malik lands. Said Arjun Roy stated to have challenged the erroneous entry regarding his lands in the R.S. Records of Rights and filed an application under Section 90 of the Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act before the assistant Settlement Officer for correction of such wrong entry, which was registered as Case No. 296/90 of the year 1934-35. To avoid any further confusion and/or complication, the then Landlord were also made parties in the said case. In the said case, said Arjun Roy prayed the except Plot Nos. 971 and 1135, the entries regarding all other plots be corrected to show that the same are not gairmajrua malik lands but are chhaparbandi lands of Arjun Roy. After hearing and being satisfied, the Assistant Settlement Officer recommended for opening of Dhakhalkar Khata in the name of Arjun Roy for R.S. Plot Nos. 914, 933, 973 974, 934, 969, 944, 970, 1140, 1143, 1141 and 972 and correction of entries, accordingly, was made regarding the said plots being gairmajrua malik Plots. It is stated that the C.S. Plot Nos. 623 and 773 were renumbered as RS Plot No. 1143. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the learned Settlement Officer accepted the recommendations made by Assistant Settlement Officer and ordered for opening of Dakhalkar Khata in the name of Arjun Roy in respect of the aforesaid R.S. Plots including Plot No. 1143 and the R.S. Khatian of village Missir Gonda @ Pahar Gonad contains on endorsement and entry regarding order passed by the Settlement Officer. The lands shown in gairmajrua khata were ordered to be corrected and to remain in occupancy (Dakhalkar) in the name of Arjun Roy at an annual chhaparbandi rental of Rs. 127 and 8 Annas. Such rent were paid to the landlords and thereafter to the State of Bihar after abolition of zamindari. The State of Bihar, according to the petitioner, cannot claim that the R.S. Plot No. 1143 is gairmajrua malik land. The building Aeroplane House style as per Avion was built on a portion of R.S. Plot No. 1143. 4. It appears that for the purposes of Ranchi Water Works, the State Government compulsorily acquired 6.62 acre from out of R.S. Plot No. 1143, while in pursuance of L.A Case No. 9 of 1958-59, after due verification and enquiry, the Land Acquisition Officer prepared a valuation khatian in which, according to the petitioner, it was shown that R.S. Plot No. 1143 was owned by Arjun Roy with chhaparbandi right and some compensation was awarded to Arjun Roy. 5. Arjun Roy being dissatisfied with the decision, also filed an application under Section 23 of the L.A. Act before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi and the same was registered as L.A. Case No. 68 of 1960. The compensation awarded to Arjun Roy stated to have been enhanced by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. Further case of the petitioner is that said Arjun Roy died on 11th July, 1962, leaving behind his widow, namely, Kamala Roy and his two daughters Kakoli Roy and Piya Roy. The last Will and testament dated 2nd September, 1951 of Arjun Roy was subject matter of the case before the District Judge, Alipore who granted probate on 8th March, 1963. In a further probate proceeding being case No. 204 of 1968, the Calcutta High Court stated to have granted additional probate valid throughout the Union of India. According to the petitioner, as per the terms of the last Will and testament Arjun Roys widow Smt. Kamala Roy got heritable, transferable and absolute right in and over R.S. Plot No. 1143 and other properties. 6. The petitioner has cited different examples such as order passed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in L.A. Case No. 68 of 1960, which was challenged before the Patna High Court. 6. The petitioner has cited different examples such as order passed by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in L.A. Case No. 68 of 1960, which was challenged before the Patna High Court. The appeal preferred by the State of Bihar being First Appeal No. 417 of 1964, which stood dismissed and in pursuance of First Appeal No. 359 of 1964 preferred by legal representatives of Arjun Roy, compensation amount was further increased. According to the petitioner, Smt. Kamala Roy, in exercise of her title and possession over R.S. Plot No. 1143, executed a deed of sale on 29th March, 1972 in favour of Smt. Anjali Das, daughter of Shri Taraknath Das in respect of a portion of Plot No. 1143, Khata No. 362 area one acre more or less of village Missir Gonda @ Pahar Gonda. The deed was registered as No. 5417, Sl No. 5265 in the Office of District Sub- Registrar, Ranchi. Smt. Anjali Das was put in possession of the said land and got her name mutated in the Office of Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi vide Mutation Case No. 154 R 26 of 1993/74. It is stated that in pursuance of arrangement made by Smt. Anjali Das, she executed a deed of settlement dated 5th May, 1976 in favour of her daughter Debika Das and her son Babu Das, which was registered as Deed No. 6114 Sl. No. 5958 of the Office of District Sub- Registrar, Ranchi. In pursuance of the said settlement, Smt. Debika Das got title and possession over 17 (seventeen) Kathas from out of R.S. Plot No 1143 and she got her name mutated in the records of Town Anchal, Ranchi and began to pay rent to the State of Bihar. A photo copy of the Correction Slip dated 2nd September, 1989 issued by the C.O., Town Anchal in Mutation Case No. 1442/89-90 has been enclosed by the petitioner. 7. Further case of the petitioner is that under registered deed of sale dated 11th May, 1990, petitioner purchased a portion measuring 5 (five) Kathas 2 (two) Chhataks 10 (ten) Square feet denoted as Sub-Plot No. 1143/D from out of R.S. Plot No. 1143 under Khata No. 362 of village Missir Gonda. The purchase was made by petitioner after duly submitted notice under Section 26 of the Urban Land (Ceilling and Regulation) Act, 1976. The purchase was made by petitioner after duly submitted notice under Section 26 of the Urban Land (Ceilling and Regulation) Act, 1976. After purchase petitioner claims to have came in possession over Sub-Plot No. 1143/D and his name has been mutated in the records of Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi in Case No. 1173 of 1990-91. The property denoted as Holding No. 227/E 4, under Ward No. 1-B (new Ward No. 1) of Ranchi Municipal Corporation and the petitioner is stated to be paying rent and cess to the Municipal Corporation. 8. According to the petitioner, he came to know of a notice published in the daily newspaper Aaj dated 22nd July, 1992, whereby the petitioner came to know that the revenue authorities have passed orders of cancellation of jamabandi in respect of various lands in village Missir Gonda standing in the name of 25 (twenty five) persons, including the petitioner be saying that those are Government lands (gairmajrua) and steps are about to be taken for ejectment under the provisions of B.P.L.F. Act. 9. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no notice was served on the petitioner and it is only on enquiry, he could come to know that Misc. Case No. 58 of 1991-92 had been initiated at the instance of the State for cancellation of jamabandi standing in his name in respect of Sub-Plot No. 1143/D and in which impugned order has been passed ex parte on 30th September, 1991 recommending cancellation of jamabandi which has been acted upon by the competent authority, who by orders dated 25th May, 1992 and 17th July, 1992 directed for cancellation of jamabandi which was the subject matter of the news item. 10. In the counter affidavit, the stand taken by the respondent-State is that the Plot No. 1143 is a gairmajrua malik land. The land is also denoted as Hathia Tongri in the remarks column of the said R.S. Khatian. 11. According to the respondents, the documents on which the petitioner relied are not valid instruments or documents for settlement and in absence of any settlement, no right can be claimed over the land in question. It is stated that the State has every right to vacate the Government land. 11. According to the respondents, the documents on which the petitioner relied are not valid instruments or documents for settlement and in absence of any settlement, no right can be claimed over the land in question. It is stated that the State has every right to vacate the Government land. While it is accepted that the Additional Collector had no jurisdiction to review the order of cancellation of jamabandi and/or to recall such order, taken plea that the petitioner could have preferred an appeal against the Order dated 17th July, 1992. However, it is not clear whether any notice was served on the petitioner or not apart from the notice stated to have been pasted on the wall of the house. 12. It is a settled law that creation of jamabandi neither creates any right and title in favour of one or other nor cancellation of jamabandi extinguishes right and title of the real owner. In this regard, one may refer to the Division Bench decision of Patna High Court in the case of Sitaram Choubey v. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 1993 (2) PLJR 255. 13. In the facts and circumstances, and as the lands have been recorded as gairmajrua malik in the records of right and it is not clear as to who is in possession of the lands in question and as it appears that there is a genuine dispute of right and title, it is desirable that the aggrieved person may move before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of right, title and possession. 14. For the reasons aforesaid, while this Court is not inclined to set aside the order of cancellation of jamabandi of petitioner, allow the petitioner to move before the competent authority or a Court of law to determine whether the cancellation of jamabandi is legal, valid of not. 15. The petitioner may approach the appropriate forum for early settlement of issues as may be raised. In case the petitioner fails to appear within a reasonable time, it will be open to the authority concerned to act in accordance with law. The petitioner will also not dispose of the land in question of part thereof till final decision is taken by the competent authority of the Court of law. 16. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. The petitioner will also not dispose of the land in question of part thereof till final decision is taken by the competent authority of the Court of law. 16. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order, as to costs.