ORDER Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance. 2. This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 15/02/2010, passed in Vigilance P.S. Case No. 51 of 2002 (Special Case No. 59 of 2002) whereby and whereunder cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 120(B), 201, 423, 424, 477 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been taken against the petitioner. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that when it was detected that the Government lands are being transferred and are being mutated in the name of private persons, a case was registered wherein it was alleged that one Jagarnath Singh had purchased a land measuring 21.50 acres. Having purchased that land, he filed an application before Arjun Roy @ Arjun Ram, the then Circle Officer, Kanke for opening jamabandi in his name. Upon it, the Circle Officer as well as this petitioner the then Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Ranchi, made recommendation for opening of jamabandi and on such recommendation, the then S.D.O. accorded its approval and, thereby, it has been alleged that the petitioner in connivance with other accused persons including Circle Officer as well as S.D.O, committed offence of forgery as well as cheating. 4. Mr. Roy, learned senior counsel appealing for the petitioner submits that the land bearing plot No. 3399 measuring an area of 23.50 acres was recorded in the last Revisional Survey Record of Right as Gairmajurwa Malik Land of Ex-landlord Thakur Mahendra Nath Shahdeo of Jariya Garh Estate. The Ex-landlord settled the entire land by sada hukumnama on 20.2.1944 to one Shankar Mahto @ Shiv Shankar Mahto and put the settlee in khas possession of the land and also issued rent receipt in his favour. The settlee Shankar Mahto @ Shiv Shankar Mahto was a settled raiyat of the village and hence, by virtue of settlement, he acquired occupancy right over the said plot. The Ex-landlord had even filed return of the land in which settlee Shankar Mahto had also been shown as raiyat. 5. It was further submitted that the settlee Shankar Mahto was recognized as raiyat by the State of Bihar and hence, jamabandi was opened in his name. The Ex-landlord had even filed return of the land in which settlee Shankar Mahto had also been shown as raiyat. 5. It was further submitted that the settlee Shankar Mahto was recognized as raiyat by the State of Bihar and hence, jamabandi was opened in his name. The said settlee Shankar Mahto remained in possession of the land without any intervention till 1962. On 7.11.1962 the original settlee transferred 21.50 acres of land out of 23.50 acres to different persons through registered sale-deeds. Subsequently, those purchasers sold the land on 18.2.1964 to one Jagarnath Singh through four sale-deeds. Jagarnath Singh having purchased the land, filed an application before the Circle Officer, Kanke, for mutating his name against the land which he had purchased. Upon it Mutation Case No. 38(1)/R/27/1983-84 was registered. After due enquiry, the Circle Officer made recommendation for mutating the name of Jagarnath Singh to this petitioner the then Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi, who also made recommendation and, thereupon the then S.D.O., on such recommendation, passed an order for mutating the land in the name of Jagarnath Singh and, hence, question of committing offence of misappropriation, forgery or even the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, does not arise, still the Court took cognizance of the offences as aforesaid, which is quite illegal. 6. In this regard it was further submitted that it is the second occasion when the petitioner has been moving this application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as earlier when the petitioner as well as Arjun Roy had moved an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, vide W.P.(Cr.) No. 89 of 2011 and W.P.(Cr.) No. 215 of 2010 which was dismissed but liberty was granted to the petitioner as well as Arjun Roy @ Arjun Ram to agitate all the points which have been raised in this application at an appropriate stage of the trial but when the case of co-accused similarly situated was quashed, Arjtin Roy @ Arjun Ram moved to this Court, vide W.P.(Cr.) No.8 of 2013 which was allowed. In such changed situation the petitioner has moved this application which would be quite maintainable in view of the ratio laid down in a case of S.M.S. Pharmaceutical Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and another, 2007 (2) Supreme 459 . 7. In such changed situation the petitioner has moved this application which would be quite maintainable in view of the ratio laid down in a case of S.M.S. Pharmaceutical Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla and another, 2007 (2) Supreme 459 . 7. Similar was the situation with Arjun Roy @ Arjun Ram when objection was taken with respect to maintainability of the case, the Court did hold the application to be maintainable, in view of the ratio rendered in a case of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Mohan Singh and others, (1975) 3 SCC 706 , wherein it had been held that when there is a changed set of circumstances, a second application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be maintainable. 8. As against this, Mr. Shailesh, learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance submits that it is true that the land which had been recorded as Gairmajrua Malik land belonged to the Ex-landlord, who had transferred the land to four different purchasers but amongst them, Shankar Mahto was never there, still Shankar Mahto was recognized as raiyat by the State of Bihar and jamabandi was opened in his name and therefore, any transfer made by Shankar Mahto in the name of subsequent transferee was illegal and, thereby, this petitioner committed illegality by making recommendation for mutating the name of Jagarnath Singh against the land in question. 9. It was further submitted that earlier the petitioner had moved to this Court challenging the order taking cognizance, but this Court vide its order dated 20th July, 2011, disposed of that writ application directing the petitioner to take all these pleas during trial and, therefore, on the same ground this application cannot be maintained as any order contrary to the order passed earlier would amount to review of its earlier order. 10. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that earlier the order taking cognizance had been challenged by this petitioner and also by one Arjun Roy @ Arjun Ram but both the applications were dismissed. Subsequent to that, one of the co-accused moved before this Court and the order taking cognizance was quashed in case of Bindeshwar Prasad Jha v. State of Jharkhand though Vigilance and others, vide W.P. (Cr.) No. 260 of 2010 holding therein that no offence is made out under which FIR has been lodged. Subsequent to that, one of the co-accused moved before this Court and the order taking cognizance was quashed in case of Bindeshwar Prasad Jha v. State of Jharkhand though Vigilance and others, vide W.P. (Cr.) No. 260 of 2010 holding therein that no offence is made out under which FIR has been lodged. Thereupon Arjun Roy @ Arjun Ram again moved to this Court vide W.P. (Cr.) No. 8 of 2013. This Court after taking into notice of the decision rendered in a case of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Mohan Singh and others (supra) was pleased to hold that second application under Section 482, of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be maintainable. Thereupon after examining the matter, the Court did find that none of the offences under which cognizance of the offences either of Indian Penal Code or Prevention of Corruption Act has been taken against Arjun Roy @ Arjun Ram gets attracted and thereby the order taking cognizance was quashed. Similar is the case with this petitioner as this petitioner as well as Arjun Roy @ Arjun Ram have been alleged to have been made recommendation for opening of jamabandi and therefore, the case of the petitioner is also allowed on the same reasoning as has been recorded in a case of Arjun Roy @ Arjun Ram v. State of Jharkhand and others, vide W.P. (Cr.) No. 8 of 2013. 11. In the result, this application stands allowed. Application allowed.