ORDER In both the petitions the petitioner has challenged the common order dated 09.01.2013 whereby the Jamabandi Nos. 35, 78 and 94 running in the name of the father of the petitioner has been cancelled and a direction has been issued for eviction of the petitioner from the property in question. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the father of the petitioner was granted a Hukumnama dated 04.04.1943 by the Exlandlord and the property in question was settled in his favour. Thereafter, the petitioner came in peaceful possession of the suit land and exercised his right, title and interest upon the said land. A proceeding being Land Encroachment No. 28/(iii) 6465 was initiated and Jamabandi was created in the name of the father of the petitioner. Since, the said land was wrongly recorded in the name of the State of Jharkhand and M/s BCCL, the petitioner filed applications under Section 87 of the C.N.T. Act being Case No. 386 of 2009 and Case No. 388 of 2009, in which vide order dated 23.03.2011 and 14.07.2012 respectively the name of the father of the petitioner has been ordered to be entered/recorded. In the said proceeding the respondents appeared and filed their written statement and no appeal has been preferred by the respondents against orders dated 23.03.2011 and 14.07.2012 and therefore, those orders have become final and the respondents would be bound by the orders passed in Case No 386 of 2009 and Case No. 388 of 2009 under Section 87 of the C.N.T. Act. The Jamabandi running in the name of the father of the petitioner has been cancelled by an authority who has no jurisdiction and the impugned order dated 09.01.2013 is arbitrary and illegal. Under the provisions of the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, the Deputy Commissioner is the Revisional Authority and after Jamabandi was created in the name of the father of the petitioner, no appeal or revision was preferred by the respondents and therefore, no proceeding under the Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 would have been initiated. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 in both the writ petitions stating that order dated 14.07.2012 in C.N.T. Suit No. 388 of 2009 would disclose that land comprised in C.S. Khata No. 38 is recorded as Gair Abad Malik Khata belonging to the State. In the Suit, a prayer was made for correction in Mauza Pandedih, Mauza No. 270 appertaining to R.S. Khata No. 77, R.S. Plot No. 58 admeasuring 1.65 acres which was recorded in the name of M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited whereas, writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1231 of 2013 relates to C.S. Khata No. 38, Plot No. 41 under Jamabandi No. 77. Thus, the subject matter in C.N.T. Case No. 388 of 2009 was different Similarly, subject matter in Case No. 386 of 2009 was also different. In view of the reports obtained in the matter it was found that Jamabandi of GairAbad Malik land was illegally created in the name of private persons and therefore, it was ordered that the delinquent Halka Karamchari should be identified for conducting a departmental proceeding against him. In view of the Government letter No. 914 dated 09.12.1998, the illegal creation of Jamabandi Nos. 35, 78, 94 etc. have been cancelled by the Circle Officer vide Memo dated 31.05.2013. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. Mr. Sanjay Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order dated 09.01.2013 is without jurisdiction inasmuch as, the Deputy Commissioner has no authority in law to pass an order whereby the Jamabandi created in the name of the father of the petitioner has been cancelled and simultaneously he has ordered eviction of the petitioner from the suit land. Under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 an occupancy Raiyat cannot be evicted from the property in question without following the procedure in law. He relies on a judgment in “Kalendra Prasad Mandal Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.”, reported in 2001 (3) PLJR 223 to submit that if a right has been created in favour of a Raiyat by a competent court of jurisdiction, the administrative authorities are bound by the same and they cannot act contrary to the decree of the court. The State of Bihar & Ors.”, reported in 2001 (3) PLJR 223 to submit that if a right has been created in favour of a Raiyat by a competent court of jurisdiction, the administrative authorities are bound by the same and they cannot act contrary to the decree of the court. It is further submitted that the Jamabandi proceeding does not create any right, title or interest in the person and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner could not have annulled the Jamabandi created in the name of the father of the petitioner. Referring to provision under Section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that power under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 can be resorted only in a situation in which to avoid the rigors of the law, a fraudulent transaction has been made and under Section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 the Deputy Commissioner cannot cancel the Jamabandi created in the name of the father of the petitioner. 6. Per contra, Mr. Md. Shamim Akhtar, S.C. (Mines), the learned counsel appearing for the respondentState of Jharkhand [in W.P.(C) No. 598 of 2013] has submitted that though a claim has been raised by the petitioner in the writ petition that the land in question was settled in favour of his father by the Exlandlord through Sada Hukumnama dated 04.04.1943 however, a copy of the Hukumnama dated 04.04.1943 has not been brought on record in any proceeding. It is further submitted that the provision under Section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act itself provides that the order is appealable and the petitioner without availing the alternative remedy straightway approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and on that ground alone the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Mr. Vikash Kishore Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the respondentState of Jharkhand [in W.P.(C) No. 1231 of 2013] has submitted that whether the power has been exercised by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 or not is immaterial in so far as, the present dispute is concerned. The dispute in issue pertains to a dispute between two parties who have made rival claims and such rival claims cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The dispute in issue pertains to a dispute between two parties who have made rival claims and such rival claims cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He relies on judgment in “Mahabir Mahto & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.”, reported in 2012 (4) JLJR 210 . It is submitted that the land in question has been found to be a Gair Mazarua land which was allegedly settled in the name of the father of the petitioner, a claim which has not been believed. After proper enquiry in the matter and receipt of enquiry report of Halka Karamchari through the Circle Inspector, the Land Revenue Deputy Collector (L.R.D.C.) forwarded the matter to the Additional Collector and on their recommendation the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order dated 09.01.2013. It is further submitted that whether a provision of law has been mentioned or not or even if wrong provision of law has been mentioned in the order in question, that would be immaterial so long as, the authority exercising power has the jurisdiction in the matter to decide the issue. He relies on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Ram Sunder Ram Vs. Union of India and Others” reported in (2007) 13 SCC 255 . Relying on judgment in “State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Taurian Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.”, reported in 2014 (1) JBCJ 155 (HC), the learned counsel appearing for the respondentState of Jharkhand has submitted that it has been found by this Court that the authority has sufficient power to look into the documents and cancel the Jamabandi after receiving necessary reports in the matter. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 09.01.2013 has been passed on an application filed by the petitioner himself and therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to challenge the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner who has passed the impugned order dated 09.01.2013. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 9. A perusal of the impugned order dated 09.01.2013 would reveal that a Land Encroachment Case No. 28 (iii)/6465 was initiated in which the Jamabandi was ordered in the name of the father of the petitioner. 8. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 9. A perusal of the impugned order dated 09.01.2013 would reveal that a Land Encroachment Case No. 28 (iii)/6465 was initiated in which the Jamabandi was ordered in the name of the father of the petitioner. A report of Halka Karamchari through Circle Inspector was sought and after considering the said report, the Deputy Commissioner on the recommendation of L.R.D.C., Dhanbad, ordered cancellation of Jamabandi. The Jamabandi Nos. 35, 78 and 94 have been recorded in the name of the father of the petitioner and it is recorded that the rent receipts were issued since 199596. However, the name of the competent authority who has ordered acceptance of rent receipt has not been mentioned. The basis for initiating the Land Encroachment case has also not been revealed. It further appears that neither the date of rent receipt nor rent receipt number have been mentioned. The hand writing in both the documents differed. A notice was issued to the petitioner however, he did not produce documents in support of his case. It has further been found that the rent receipt is said to have been issued since 21.03.1963, whereas the proceeding in the Land Encroachment Case was initiated on 19.08.1964. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the Deputy Commissioner recorded a finding that the documents produced by the petitioner appears to be suspicious and the aforesaid Jamabandi have been created in the name of the father of the petitioner in collusion with the Revenue Officers. 10. Referring to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that under Section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 the Deputy Commissioner would have no jurisdiction to pass an order cancelling the Jamabandi and simultaneously ordering eviction of the petitioner from the property in question, I find that the Collector after giving reasonable notice to the parties may annul the transfer including the settlement or lease of any land and dispossess the person claiming under such transfer. Section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 is extracted below: “Section 4 (h): The Collector shall have power to make inquiries in respect of any transfer including the settlement or lease of any land comprised in such estate or tenure or the transfer of any kind of interest in any building used primarily as office or cutchery for the collection of rent of such estate or tenure or part thereof and if he is satisfied that such transfer was made at any time after the first day of January, 1946, with the object of defeating any provisions of this Act or causing loss to the State or obtaining higher compensation there under the Collector may, after giving reasonable notice to the parties concerned to appear and be heard annul such transfer, dispossess the person claiming under it and take possession of such property on such terms as may appear to the Collector to be fair and equitable. Provided that an appeal against an order of the Collector under this clause if preferred within sixty days of such order, shall lie to the prescribed authority not below the rank of the Collector of a district who shall dispose of the same according to the prescribed procedure : Provided further that no order annulling a transfer shall take effect nor shall possession be taken in pursuance of it unless such an order has been confirmed by the State Government.” 11. Mr. Vikash Kishore Prasad the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State of Jharkhand has relied on a decision in “State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Taurian Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.”, reported in 2014 (1) JBCJ 155 (HC). In “Taurian Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.”, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the Circle Officer and the Deputy Commissioner are not precluded from considering the evidence on the basis of which a party is claiming possession. As seen from the record of the case, the petitioner filed an application before the Circle Officer when the Revenue Karamchari had refused to accept rent and issue rent receipt to him. On the application of the petitioner the proceeding was initiated and report from the Halka Karamchari was received. As seen from the record of the case, the petitioner filed an application before the Circle Officer when the Revenue Karamchari had refused to accept rent and issue rent receipt to him. On the application of the petitioner the proceeding was initiated and report from the Halka Karamchari was received. Merely because the grievance of the petitioner was that the Revenue Authority refused to issue rent receipt to him, the case would not fall under the provisions of Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 and I am of the opinion that the proceeding was initiated under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. Since the Jamabandi in the name of the father of the petitioner was created fraudulently, the transaction would fall under the expression “with the object of defeating any provision of this Act” and also under the expression “causing loss to the State”. 12. Centuries ago Chief Justice, Edward Coke proclaimed “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal”. In “Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley” reported in (1956) 1 QB 702 Lord Denning declared, “No judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything”. In “Meghmala and Others Vs. G. Narasimha Reddy and Others”, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 383 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus; 33. “Fraud is an intrinsic, collateral act, and fraud of an egregious nature would vitiate the most solemn proceedings of the courts of justice. Fraud is an act of deliberate deception with a design to secure something, which is otherwise not due.” 13. A perusal of the judgment cited by Mr. Vikash Kishore Prasad, the learned counsel for the respondent State of Jharkhand and the provision under Section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Refroms Act, 1950 leaves no manner of doubt that the Deputy Commissioner has jurisdiction to order cancellation of the Jamabandi. The land in question has been found to be a Gair Mazarua land and in collusion with the revenue officials Jamabandi was created in the name of the father of the petitioner. Once it has been found that the Jamabandi has been created fraudulently in the name of the father of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner had no doubt jurisdiction to order eviction of the petitioner from the suit land. 14. Once it has been found that the Jamabandi has been created fraudulently in the name of the father of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner had no doubt jurisdiction to order eviction of the petitioner from the suit land. 14. Although the provision of law under which the Deputy Commissioner has exercised power for passing impugned order dated 09.01.2013 has not been mentioned, I find that since such an order has been passed on the application moved by the petitioner himself, the petitioner cannot raise the plea of jurisdiction challenging the impugned order dated 09.01.2013. Mr. Vikash Kishore Prasad, the learned counsel for the respondent State of Jharkhand has rightly contended that even though a wrong provision of law has been mentioned or the provision under which the authority has exercised power is not mentioned, the order would not become without jurisdiction. In “N. Mani Vs. Sangeetha Theatre and Others”, reported in (2004) 12 SCC 278 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: 9. “It is well settled that if an authority has a power under the law merely because while exercising that power the source of power is not specifically referred to or a reference is made to a wrong provision of law, that by itself does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power does exist and can be traced to a source available in law.” 15. From the record it appears that it was reported that without order from a competent authority rent receipt was issued till the year, 1995-96. With respect to Jambandi No. 78 the Land Encroachment Case No. 28 (iii)/6465 is said to be the basis for opening Jamabandi in the name of one Lekho Prasad Chouhan however, in the order sheet there is no signature of a competent authority. The land in Khata No. 38 in Plot Nos. 486, 479, 501, 1016, 1109 & 164 and in Khata No. 38 in Plot No. 42, 199, 196 & 33 are Gair Abad Malik Land and the Jamabandi No. 94 has been created without an order of a competent authority. The rent is said to have been paid from 1986-87 to 1992-93 however, the date of the rent receipt and the receipt number are not mentioned. The rent is said to have been paid from 1986-87 to 1992-93 however, the date of the rent receipt and the receipt number are not mentioned. The Circle Officer had issued notice to the petitioner however, he did not appear before him and therefore, the case record was forwarded to the L.R.D.C, Dhanbad for further proceeding. The matter was heard by the learned L.R.D.C., Dhanbad and he found discrepancies in the rent receipt which was issued on 21.03.1963 that is, prior to the initiation of the Land Encroachment Case. The issuance of the rent receipt has been doubted by the L.R.D.C.. The learned Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad has recorded that the land covered under the Jamabandi in question is GairAbad Malik Land and in collusion with the then Circle Officer and the Revenue Karamchari illegal Jamabandi was created and documents were fabricated. In view of the aforesaid I find that there is a concurrent finding of fact that the Jamabandi Nos. 35, 78 and 94 were created without an order of the competent authority. The order in the Encroachment Case does not bear the signature of the officer who passed the order. The petitioner has not produced a copy of the Hukumnama through which the land in question was settled in the name of his father. There is no explanation for moving the application before the Circle Officer in the year, 2011 though, the rent receipt was not issued after 1995-96. There is no evidence produced by the petitioner that the father of the petitioner paid rent to the Exlandlord and the Exlandlord submitted the return. The plea that there is a valid decree of a civil court with respect to title of the father of the petitioner in Jambandi Nos. 35, 78 and 94 is also not substantiated. The order passed in Case No. 386 of 2009 records that an order has been passed for correction in Mouza No. 270, Khata No. 79 which is not subject matter in the present proceeding. Similarly, in Case No. 388 of 2009, an order for correction in name in Mouza No. 270, Khata No. 77 has been passed. In view of the aforesaid I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 09.01.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad and accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.