JUDGMENT By Court: The petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents, particularly, Respondent No.4, to issue rent receipts after accepting rent in respect of the raiyati land, measuring an area of 4 acres (3.49 acres in Plot No.304 and 0.51 acre in Plot no.262) of Khata no.383 under Khewat No.2 of village Pundag, Thana no.228, District Ranchi. 2. It has been stated that the land was settled in the name of Late Sheik Puran, grand father of the petitioner, by the ex. landlord in the year 1944, followed by rent receipts, after vesting of the estate in Government by virtue of the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act. The petitioner’s grand father was recognized as tenant by the State and his name was entered in RegisterII. Rent receipts were also issued on accepting rent by the revenue authority. After death of the petitioner’s grand father, name of the petitioner’s father was entered in RegisterII and the same is still running. But the revenue authority suddenly refused to accept rent and issue rent receipts. 3. Mrs. Sheela Prasad, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that once the State Government has accepted the petitioner’s father as raiyat and Jamabandi was opened in his name that valuable right of tenancy cannot be casually denied by the revenue authority until the Jamabandi and entry in RegisterII is set aside by any competent court of law. In the instant case, no notice was even issued and no proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner and no opportunity of hearing or representation has been given to the petitioner before denial of his said right. The action of the respondents is, thus, wholly arbitrary and illegal. 4. Learned counsel referred to a decision of this Court passed in W.P. (C) No.1119 of 2006 (Muslim @ Md. Muslim Ansari Vs.The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) and submitted that in actually the similar fact situation, this Court has held that the petitioner, in whose name RegisterII is running, is entitled to get rent receipts on payment of rent. This Court had directed the concerned respondents to accept rent and grant rent receipts. The said order was challenged in L.P.A. No.474 of 2006, but the said appeal was dismissed. The state respondents, thereafter, preferred special leave petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, being S.L.P. (Civil) 8279 of 2009, which was also dismissed. This Court had directed the concerned respondents to accept rent and grant rent receipts. The said order was challenged in L.P.A. No.474 of 2006, but the said appeal was dismissed. The state respondents, thereafter, preferred special leave petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, being S.L.P. (Civil) 8279 of 2009, which was also dismissed. The order of this Court has become final. She admitted that similar view has been taken in the case of Surajdeo Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. [W.P.(C) No.4484 of 2007]. 5. The present writ petition has been opposed by the State respondents by filing counter affidavit. It has been, inter alia, stated that Khata No.383 was recorded as Gairmajarua Malik land in Revisional Survey Record of Right and in respect of the said land Jamabandi was created in the name of Sheik Puran in the year 1983 in connivance of concerned Revenue Officer. Subsequently, Hukumnama, on the basis of which settlement is claimed, was prepared after 195556 i.e. after vesting of Zamindari in the State. The said Hukumnama is forged and fabricated document. The Circle Officer, Ratu had initiated proceeding for cancellation of the said Jamabandi, which was opened without any authority. 6. Learned Standing Counsel No.I, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that though Jamabandi was running in the name of the petitioner’s grand father and rent receipt was issued on that basis, the same was not genuine. The settlement in the name of the grand father, claimed by the petitioner, was colourable and document must be a forged one. The land, in question, is Government land and there is no valid document of title and possession with the petitioner. There is, thus, no arbitrariness in refusing to accept rent in respect of the said land. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. 8. According to the petitioner, the land, in question, was Gairmajarua Malik and his grand father had acquired the same by virtue of settlement (Annexure3) from the ex. landlord by executing Kabuliat (Annexure2) followed by rent receipts (Annexure4 series). After vesting of Zamindari under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the State recognized the petitioner’s father as tenant in respect of the said land and his name was entered in RegisterII. The State, accordingly, issued rent receipts in respect of the said land. landlord by executing Kabuliat (Annexure2) followed by rent receipts (Annexure4 series). After vesting of Zamindari under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the State recognized the petitioner’s father as tenant in respect of the said land and his name was entered in RegisterII. The State, accordingly, issued rent receipts in respect of the said land. After death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner approached the revenue authority and offered to pay rent, but the same was refused. The said facts have not been disputed by the State respondents in their counter affidavit. It has also not been disputed that there is no contrary order of any competent court of law, setting aside the Jamabandi running in favour of the petitioner’s father. Admittedly, no notice was issued and no proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. He was not given any opportunity of hearing before refusing to accept rent and granting rent receipts. 9. It has been repeatedly held that Jamabandi created in favour of a raiyat confers valuable right and the same cannot be interfered with or taken away lightly, arbitrarily and illegally. If there is any defect in creation of Jamabandi or if the Jamabandi is wrongly opened, the State can challenge the same in a legal proceeding before the competent court of law. They cannot simply refuse to accept rent and grant rent receipts. 10. In the instant case, no order of any competent court has been brought to the notice of this Court against the running Jamabandi of the petitioner. In view thereof, the respondents have no authority to refuse acceptance of rent and issuance of rent receipts to the petitioner. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed. The Circle Officer, Ratu is directed to accept rent in respect of the land, in question, offered by the petitioner and grant rent receipt until any contrary order is passed by any competent court of law.