ORDER : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the issuance of rent receipts for the land in question in favour of one Karma Lohar. 3. The factual matrix of the case as stated in the writ petition is that 54 decimals of land under Plot No. 533, Khata No. 71, VillagePirra was recorded in the name of Makeshwar Ram Dubey in the khatiyan. The said land was registered in favour of one Bucca Lohar as adhbataidar. After the abolition of jamindari, the recorded raiyat took possession of the land from Bucca Lohar, filed return and the rent was fixed in favour of Late Makeshawer Ram Dubey in Case No. 1065 R-08 1953-56. Thereafter, the recorded raiyat came in possession of the land in question and the petitioner being the legal heir of said Late Makeshwar Ram Dubey is in peaceful possession of the land in question since 1956. The son of adhbataidar Karma Lohar filed an appeal being Appeal No. 11 R-15 1964-65 against the order of the Circle Officer before the Additional Collector, Ranchi. The aforesaid appeal was rejected vide order dated 01.03.1966 as not maintainable. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent no. 4 has been harassing the petitioner by repeatedly filing cases under Section 144 Cr.P.C. on frivolous grounds and the SubDivisional Magistrate, Ranchi repeatedly intervened in the matter and decided the case in favour of the petitioner. The respondent no. 4 also filed a title suit for the same land being Title Suit No. 188 of 2005 and the same is pending in the court of Munsif, Ranchi and during pendency of the suit, the Circle Officer, without issuing any notice or initiating any proceeding, issued rent receipts in favour of Karma Lohar. The petitioner also came to know that the successor of Karma Lohar by virtue of registered saledeed dated 04.10.2004 sold the land in question in favour of respondent no. 4 and one Jahir Ansari. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 3 may be restrained from issuing rent receipts in favour of Karma Lohar. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 submits that the respondent no. 4 and one Jahir Ansari. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 3 may be restrained from issuing rent receipts in favour of Karma Lohar. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 submits that the respondent no. 4 has purchased the land in question by the successor of Karma Lohar by virtue of saledeed dated 04.10.2004 which was sold in favour of respondent no. 4 and one Jahir Ansari. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent no. 4 has already filed a suit for declaration of title over the plot in question being Title Suit No. 188 of 2005 which is pending in the court of Munsif, Ranchi and, therefore, the respondent no. 4 is the lawful owner of the plot in question. The respondent no. 3 has rightly not entertained the intervention of the petitioner in the revenue records. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent-State while relying upon the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 submits that the land of VillagePirra, P.S.Ranchi (now Ratu), P.S. No.93, Khata No.71, Plot No. 533, Area54 decimals under Khewat No. 2/8 stands recorded in the name of Bucca Lohar, S/o Charku Lohar as Kaimi. The name of the landlord as mentioned in the Khatian is Makeshwar Ram Dubey. The jamabandi of the land in question has been created in the name of Karma Lohar, S/o Bucca Lohar and Shiodhan Lohar as well as Ram Charan Lohar, sons of Mohan Lohar in the RegisterII, Vol.I, Page No.73 mentioning the reference of Case No. 45 R 8 of 1960-61. It has been mentioned in the RegisterII that rent from 1984-85 to 2003-04 has been realised from the raiyats of the Register-II. It is further submitted that the jamabandi of land in question is running in the name of Karma Lohar, S/o Bucca Lohar and Shiodhan Lohar as well as Ram Charan Lohar, sons of Mohan Lohar. The jamabandi in the name of the purchasers Shajjad Khan (respondent no. 4) and Jahir Ansari has not been created in the Register-II. 6. It is further submitted that the jamabandi of land in question is running in the name of Karma Lohar, S/o Bucca Lohar and Shiodhan Lohar as well as Ram Charan Lohar, sons of Mohan Lohar. The jamabandi in the name of the purchasers Shajjad Khan (respondent no. 4) and Jahir Ansari has not been created in the Register-II. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the relevant documents placed on record, it appears that the names of Karma Lohar, S/o Bucca Lohar and Shiodhan Lohar as well as Ram Charan Lohar, sons Mohan Lohar have been recorded in the Register-II. Neither the name of the petitioner nor of the respondent no. 4 appears in Register-II. Moreover, the title suit has already been filed by the respondent no. 4 in connection with the land in question being Title Suit No. 188 of 2005 which is said to be pending in the court of Munsif, Ranchi. In the said situation, the respondent no. 3 has rightly not entertained the petitioner questioning the issuance of rent receipts in favour of Karma Lohar. 7. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of “Mahabir Mahto & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.” reported in 2012 (4) JLJR 210 , while considering the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities under the provisions of Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has held as under: “26. In sum and substance, the mutation proceedings have limited scope so far as its effect is concerned and the purpose of mutation proceeding is very clear from the Act of 1973 itself which substantially suggests that these are proceedings to safeguard the interest of the State and the revenue authorities primarily so that the State may know the persons' right over the agricultural land and once the names are entered in the revenue record they can be altered only because of the reasons mentioned in Sections 3 to 13 of the Act of 1973. The provisions referred above are not meant for getting a declaration in serious dispute cases with respect to the entitlement and, therefore, it has been specifically provided by Section 5 of the Act of 1973 that when under the Code of Civil Procedure, possession of a holding or part thereof has been delivered in execution of a decree to the decree holder or to a purchase at Court auction sale or when a final decree for partition or for foreclosure of a mortgage has been passed the Court executing the decree or the Court passing the final decree for partition or foreclosure, as the case may be, shall also give notice of the fact in the prescribed form to the Anchal Adhikari of the area. The Anchal Adhikari has no jurisdiction to alter or modify or disobey the court's decree and consequential effect of the possession under the Act of 1973 or otherwise. Looking to the nature of the proceeding and limited jurisdiction of the Anchal Adhikari of making correction in the revenue record, the Anchal Adhikari has no power and jurisdiction to pass a decree or order of declaration of a right, title or interest in the property or has right to declare about legality and validity of an instrument of transfer or a settlement or decide the issue of contentious succession cases which power vest under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, in civil courts.” 8. It is now a settled law that under the scheme of the Act of 1973, the revenue authority has no jurisdiction to decide the complicated legal dispute including the adverse claims of the parties. Considering the fact of the present case that the respondent no. 4 has already filed a title suit which is said to be pending in the court of Munsif, Ranchi for the land in question, in my considered view, the respondent no. 3 has rightly refused to respond to the request of the petitioner questioning the issuance of rent receipts in favour of Karma Lohar, particularly in view of the fact that the name of Karma Lohar, Shiodhan Lohar and Ram Charan Lohar have been recorded in Register-II. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner, if so advised, may seek remedy before the appropriate Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner, if so advised, may seek remedy before the appropriate Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. However, it is observed that the dismissal of the present writ petition shall not prejudice the case of the parties either in the pending title suit or before the revenue authorities.