Order : Let the Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi be impleaded as respondent no. 6 in the instant writ petition for which necessary correction shall be carried out by learned counsel for the petitioner in red ink during course of the day. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner has prayed for issuance of rent receipts up to date in his favour in respects of plots of land in Khata nos. 1 and 383 under Mauza Pundag, Revenue Thana no. 228 measuring 20.94 acres and 199.04 acres respectively said to have been executed through registered lease deed by the erstwhile Land lord of Palkot Estate on 22.4.1948 in the office of District Sub Registrar, Ranchi, being deed no. 4535 of the year 1948. The lease is for a period of 999 years commencing from 22.4.1948. Details of the plots claimed by the petitioner have been given by way of a chart at para 6 of the writ petition. Petitioner claims to have mutated its name in Register-II in the Circle Office, Ratu in the name of petitioner-company through its Managing Director U.P. Malik. Undisputedly, one rent receipt has only been issued in his favour being rent receipt no. 52929 dated 31.3.1971 for an area of 219.98 acres. Petitioner has stated in the averments in the writ petition that as per the information furnished under R.T.I by the Circle Officer, Nagri through letter no. 1047(II) dated 18.10.2013, his name has not been recorded in the present Register-II in respect of khata no. 1 and 383 measuring 219.98 acres. Petitioner has also alleged on the basis of information furnished under R.T.I in respect of aforesaid plots of land vide letter no. 1059(II) dated 22.10.2013 that there are names of several other persons recorded in Register-II totaling 104 persons in respect of khata no. 383 and 136 persons in respect of khata no.1(Annexure-7). Petitioner alleges that names of those persons have been recorded without any basis. Petitioner also alleges that he has requested the Circle Officer to cancel the Jamabandi illegally opened in the name of various persons and to stop further rent receipts issued to those persons illegally in connivance with the authorities of the State. Petitioner has on his own also made request for issuance of rent recent in respect of plot no. 383, which he claims was mutated in the year 1971. 4. Petitioner has on his own also made request for issuance of rent recent in respect of plot no. 383, which he claims was mutated in the year 1971. 4. Second prayer made by the petitioner in the background of the aforesaid facts is to direct the respondents to proceed with the Misc. Case filed against several persons for cancellation of doubtful and illegally opened jamabandi in respect of khata no. 1 and 383 under thana no. 228, Mauza-Pundag pending since 2002-03. 5. Stand of the respondents as reflected in the counter affidavit show that in the return filed by the Ex-Landlord Lal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo who had created Devi Chintamani Trust, name of only 6 raiyats are mentioned to whom the ex-Landlord had settled the 'Gair Mazrua' lands of village Pundag. Petitioner's name is not mentioned in the said return. The land of Mauza Pundag, khata no. 383 as mentioned above vested in the State free from all encumbrances by virtue of provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. After vesting of zamindari right, no zamindari return was filed in favour of the petitioner by the Ex-landlord. It is further stated that neither jamabandi in respect of land in question was created on the eve of vesting of zamindari right nor any entry was made at the time of 'Bujharat'. On thorough inquiry, it has been found that no jamabandi of land in question stands running in the name of the petitioner in present Register-II. 6. It is further averred that jamabandi of land of Mauza Pundag khata no.1 and 383 measuring 219.98 acres in the Old Register-II in the year 1971 was created without obtaining order of the competent authority in connivance with Revenue Karmachari of the Circle Office as would be evident from relevant pages in Register-II. Reference has also been made to Annexure-2 to the writ petition and it is further stated that only one rent receipt no. 529290 dated 31.3.1971 was issued in favour of the petitioner/ company. The said jamabandi was created in the Register-II illegally without any basis. It is further submitted that petitioner is not in possession of the land in question. Respondents also stated that jamabandi of 'gair majarua' land of thana no. 228 khata no. 529290 dated 31.3.1971 was issued in favour of the petitioner/ company. The said jamabandi was created in the Register-II illegally without any basis. It is further submitted that petitioner is not in possession of the land in question. Respondents also stated that jamabandi of 'gair majarua' land of thana no. 228 khata no. 383 totaling area 199.04 acres are running illegally in the name of different raiyats in Register-II as per the list made available under R.T.I Act to the petitioner. Necessary action shall be taken to cancel such illegal jamabani after observing all procedure under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in response has submitted that no proceedings for revocation of jamabandi opened in favour of the petitioner in 1971 has been initiated nor any steps have been ever taken for declaration of settlement/lease entered by the Ex-Landlord in favour of the petitioner-company as illegal under any of the provisions of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 till date. In such circumstances, when the jamabandi has been entered into Register-II, there is no substance in the contentions of the respondents that the present Register-II does not bear his name. It is submitted that no proceeding under Section 4(h) of the of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 has been initiated ever against the petitioner. It is submitted that settlement made in favour of the petitioner by the Ex-Landlord through registered deed of lease amounts to creation of his raiyati right in the land, which cannot be annulled without any declaration of the Court of Law. It is further reiterated that no steps have been taken by the respondents to cancel the illegal jamabandi created in the name of several such persons as reflected in the information furnished under R.T.I vide Annexure-7 dated 22.10.2013. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents on instruction submits that jamabandi in respect of some of the persons which were found to be illegal have also been cancelled and confirmed by the Government. 9. I have considered the submission of the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. The facts of the case narrated herein above throws few questions which are being dwelled upon hereinafter. 9. I have considered the submission of the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record. The facts of the case narrated herein above throws few questions which are being dwelled upon hereinafter. Settlement of land by Ex-Landlord in favour of the petitioner for claiming right, title and ownership of the property and possession thereof would depend also upon compliance of provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, which contemplates furnishing of return by the Ex-Landlord containing the names of the persons, description of area and the plots of which settlement have been made by the Ex-Landlord and that too before the cut off date 1.1.1946. It is the clear case of the respondents that in the zamindari returns furnished by the erstwhile ex-landlord, petitioner's name does not figure showing any valid settlement made by it in terms of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. It further appears that except for one rent receipt issued in the year 1971 bearing no.529290 dated 31.3.1971 in respect of area of 219.98 acres of khata no 1 and 383, there are no rent receipt issued thereafter in favour of the petitioner. Surprisingly, petitioner never made any efforts for issuance of any rent receipt before approaching this Court in the year 2015 by way of present writ petition. More surprisingly, respondents have also not taken any steps for cancellation, if at all any such jamabandi have been created illegally in favour of the petitioner in 1971, though the provisions of relevant Act i.e. the Bihar Tenants Holding (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 do make provisions for such an eventuality. The Deputy Commissioner of the District can exercise suo-muto revisional power under Section 16 of the Act of 1973. The Deputy Commissioner of the District can exercise suo-muto revisional power under Section 16 of the Act of 1973. Collector of the District may either on an application made to him on that behalf or for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any order made under this Act or the rules made there under by any authority or officer call for and examine the record of any case pending before or disposed of by such authority or officer and pass such order as he thinks fit ;provided that the Collector shall not entertain any application from any person aggrieved of any such order unless made within 30 days from the date of order; provided further that no order modifying, altering or setting aside, any order made by such authority or officer shall be passed by the Collector unless the parties concerned have been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 10. Respondents in their counter affidavit alleged that no competent authority has authorized opening of jamabandi in favour of the petitioner in 1971. The inaction on the part of the respondents in not taking steps for annulment of the jamabandi is inexplicable. There are provisions under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 , specifically Section 4(h) also quoted here under, which empower the Collector to make inquiry 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 for the collection of rent of such estate or tenure or part thereof for the purposes of his satisfaction that such transfer was made at any time after the first day of January, 1946 with the object of defeating any provisions of the Act of 1950 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. Provisions for appeal has also been made against such order of Collector. It further provides that no order annulling transfer shall take effect nor shall possession be taken in pursuance of it unless such an order has been confirmed by the State Government. Provisions for appeal has also been made against such order of Collector. It further provides that no order annulling transfer shall take effect nor shall possession be taken in pursuance of it unless such an order has been confirmed by the State Government. “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 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. The relevant provisions of law have as noticed hereinabove shows that statutory and quasi-judicial authorities defined in the respective Acts have been entrusted with a duty to act in terms of the provisions of the Act on satisfaction of laid down conditions and of course after giving opportunity to the persons likely to be affected. The present state of affairs as revealed in the facts of the present case show that the respondent authorities of the State have been sleeping over their responsibilities for long. This inaction does not improve the case of the present petitioner also. The present state of affairs as revealed in the facts of the present case show that the respondent authorities of the State have been sleeping over their responsibilities for long. This inaction does not improve the case of the present petitioner also. The present petitioner, if he claims right, title ownership and possession over the piece of land, objected by the respondents, it was always open for him to seek a declaration from the competent Court of law where such questions of facts can be adjudicated after evidence. Petitioner has approached this court after about 35 years of issuance of one rent receipt in his favour. Such conduct of petitioner itself does not warrant any indulgence of this Court as it is suffering from unexplained delay and laches as well. In such circumstances, no specific directions can be issued on the plea of the petitioner in the present writ application for issuance of rent receipt in view of the facts and reasons recorded hereinabove. 12. However, if the contentions of the respondents reflected through their counter affidavit is true that illegal jamabandi has been continuing in the name of several such persons in the plots in question under the said Circle, it does not stand to reason why the respondents have not taken adequate steps in accordance with law in that regard under the provisions of the Act of 1973 or Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 or any other law as may be applicable. 13. None of those parties are before this Court. Therefore, no observation on merits can be made behind their back. However, respondents are required to act in accordance with law after following principles of natural justice and also due opportunity to any such persons whose right might be affected in pursuit of any such action. 14. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, it would only be proper that copy of this order be also sent to the Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi for taking due cognizance of the matter and steps in accordance with law. Petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent Court of law for any such declaration of his right, title, ownership and possession over the plots in question if permissible in law. Any observation made hereinabove would not act to his prejudice in such proceeding. 15. The writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid observation.