JUDGMENT D.G.R. Patnaik, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 31.3.2004 as well as the order dated 20.12.2001, passed by the Circle Officer, Ranchi in Case No. 20 R8/2003-04 and 13 R8/2001-2002 respectively, whereby the petitioners application for issuance of rent receipts in view of the Jamabandi created in her name in respect of the lands in Plot Nos. 557, 563, 565, 571 and 596, measuring total area of 2.30 acres, has been rejected. 2. Earlier by filing WP(C) No. 650 of 2004, the petitioner had prayed before this Court for a direction to the respondent-Circle Officer for disposing of the petitioners application for issuance of rent receipt in her favour in respect of the said lands. Without going into the merits of the case, a direction was issued to the respondent No. 2 to dispose of the application of the petitioner in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. Later, the petitioner filed a contempt application on the ground that the order passed by this Court in the aforementioned WP(C) No. 650 of 2004 was not complied with by the respondents within the stipulated period. In their show cause reply, the respondent-Circle Officer informed that the petitioners application for issuance of rent receipt was rejected on 26.12.2001, and again when a similar application was filed, it was also rejected by order dated 31.3.2004. Since the petitioner has claimed knowledge of the impugned orders for the first time on the basis of the show cause replies field by the respondents in the contempt case a liberty was granted to the petitioner to challenge the impugned orders in accordance with law and, therefore, the present writ application. 3. The cause of the petitioner is that one Babu Narmadeshwar Prasad Singh was the ex-landlord and owner of the lands under reference. By a Registered deed of surrender dated 4.3.1948 executed by one Chamra Oraon and Somra Oraon, both sons of Bhoma Oraon, in favour of the exlandlord in respect of the lands in Plot Nos. 3. The cause of the petitioner is that one Babu Narmadeshwar Prasad Singh was the ex-landlord and owner of the lands under reference. By a Registered deed of surrender dated 4.3.1948 executed by one Chamra Oraon and Somra Oraon, both sons of Bhoma Oraon, in favour of the exlandlord in respect of the lands in Plot Nos. 557, 563 and 565, measuring an area of 0.75 acres and another deed of surrender dated 29.12.1949 was made by the wife of one Bandhan Oraon in respect of the land in Plot No. 571 measuring an area of 0.71 acres, the lands vested in the ex-landlord. Later, by a Hukumnama executed by the ex- landlord in favour of the petitioner, the lands under reference in this case was settled in favour of the petitioner which was confirmed after vesting of the lands in the State Government. The petitioner was recognized and recorded as a tenant and the petitioners name was entered in the relevant Revenue records including Volume II of Register II at Page 84 and a Jamabandi was recorded in her name and the Government accepted rent from the petitioner and issued receipts for the same right from 1956 in favour of the petitioner. Thus, ever since after the settlement made in her favour, the petitioner has been coming in peaceful possession and occupation of the land without any interference from any order. 4. While this state of affairs continued, a miscellaneous proceeding was initiated before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ranchi vide Misc. Case No. 6 of 1996-97 against one Gopal Narayan Tiwary and others in view of a purported letter dated 23.11.1996 of the Additional Collector, Ranchi for cancellation of the Jamabandi running in the names of the Gopal Narayan Tiwary, Smt. Gayanti Devi and Rakesh Kumar in respect of the land in Plot No. 379, Mouza-Chiraundi, Thana No. 186, measuring an area of 66 decimals. The petitioner was not made a party to the aforesaid proceedings and, therefore, she was not at all aware of the pendency of the proceedings. It was revealed for the first time by the respondents, in their show cause filed in the above- mentioned contempt proceedings that the entries of the names of Gopal Narayan Tiwary and others at Page 84 Volume II, Register II was found to be an interpolation made fraudulently and proper action against the concerned authorities was recommended. It was revealed for the first time by the respondents, in their show cause filed in the above- mentioned contempt proceedings that the entries of the names of Gopal Narayan Tiwary and others at Page 84 Volume II, Register II was found to be an interpolation made fraudulently and proper action against the concerned authorities was recommended. The entry of the name of the petitioner was not sought to be disturbed even by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer in the aforesaid miscellaneous proceedings. 5. Yet, despite the fact that the petitioner was found in continuous possession of the lands under reference and despite the long running Jamabandi of the petitioner, the Circle Officer had refused to accept the rent tendered by the petitioner and to issue rent receipts. On the other hand, the Circle Officer and the concerned Revenue authorities have been entertaining application illegally from strangers for mutating their names in the - Revenue records in respect of the petitioners lands. 6. The contention of the petitioner is that since admittedly, the petitioner has been coming in possession of the lands under reference for more than 45 years without any interference and since the Jamabandi is continuing in the name of the petitioner since decades, the Revenue Authorities cannot refuse to accept rent and issue rent receipts to the petitioner. 7. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that the refusal to accept rent and to issue rent receipt tantamounts to denial of the petitioners right, which was vested in her pursuant to the creation of the Jamabandi in her name and it also tantamounts to cancellation of the petitioners Jamabandi. Learned Counsel adds that the Circle Officer has no authority in law to pass any order refusing to accept rent and to issue rent receipts to the petitioner and neither has he any authority under the law to treat the Jamabandi of the petitioner as cancelled on the basis of some findings reported by the Sub-Divisional Officer. Learned Counsel adds further that unless the Jamabandi of the petitioner is cancelled by the competent civil Court, the respondents have no authority to deny the petitioner of her rights. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondents would submitted that the Jamabandi of the petitioner has not been cancelled and even otherwise, the petitioner has availed her remedy by way of filing a suit. 9. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondents would submitted that the Jamabandi of the petitioner has not been cancelled and even otherwise, the petitioner has availed her remedy by way of filing a suit. 9. From the recitals of the petitioners case, the following facts do emerge: (i) That admittedly Jamobandi was opened in the name of the petitioner and the rent receipts were issued continuously to her. The petitioner was also found to be in continuous possession of the lands. (ii) That the Sub-Divisional Officer in course of his enquiry relating to entries of names of some persons in the Jamabandi Registers, has found that the entry of names of persons other than the petitioner, was made by way of fraudulent interpolation. 10. Despite the above facts, the Circle Officer has initiated proceedings and passed the impugned order and has stopped accepting rent and issuing rent receipts to the petitioner. The respondents have not showed any provisions of law under which the Circle Officer could pass any such order as impugned. It is settled principle of law that once a Jamabandi has been created by the competent authority in favour of a person and the revenue authorities have been accepting rents, it creates a valuable right in favour of the person and such valuable right cannot be taken away except through the procedure established by law. The Circle Officer has no jurisdiction to interfere with the tenancy rights of the petitioner and create a situation, which may lead to the petitioners ejectment from the lands,. The impugned order dated 31.3.2004 and the order dated 20.12.2001, passed by the Circle Officer, Ranchi in Case Nos. 20 R8/2003-04 and 13 R8/2001-2002 respectively are totally illegal, without jurisdiction and are hereby quashed. This writ application is allowed. 11. However, there shall be no order as to costs.