ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the Respondent no. 4 (Circle Officer, Chouparan) to update the rent receipt of the petitioner for an area of land admeasuring 51.65 decimals situated at Khata No. 126, Plot No. 887, Thana No. 110 at Mouza-Ratari, District-Bokaro which is lawfully possessed by the petitioner. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the land situated at village Ratari, Block Bermo under Khata No. 126, Plot No. 837 admeasuring an area of 65 acres (hereinafter called “the said land”) was recorded as Gair Majarua Khas land in the survey Khatian. In the year 1948, by way of registered sale deed being no. 6226 dated 23.11.1948, the said land was settled in favour of one Niwaran Mahtha by the ex-landlord and thereafter Jamabandi was also created in his favour in the year 1952 and 1956 and since then, the rent for the said land was being paid by him. The said land was subsequently sold to Kismat Ansari in the year 1985-86 and his name was also mutated vide Misc. Case No. 28/1985-86 who paid the rent for the said land. Kismat Ansari thereafter sold 11 decimals of land to the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 21.01.2006. The petitioner also purchased 42 decimals of land from Niwaran Mahtha. The jamabandi of the land was created in favour of the petitioner vide Mutation Case No. 509/2005-06 and 510/2005-06 and he has been paying the rent of the said land. The petitioner applied for issuance of No Objection Certificate under the Petroleum Rules which was kept pending and thereafter a writ petition being W.P.C No. 4955 of 2009, was filed in this Court which was disposed of on 03.12.2009 directing the respondent no. 2 to pass reasoned order within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of order. In the meantime, a proceeding u/s 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reform Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 1950) was initiated over the said land vide Misc. Case No. 101 of 2009 on the ground that the said land is of the nature of Gair Majarua Khas, the transfer of which had taken place after 01.01.1946. In the meantime, a proceeding u/s 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reform Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred as the Act, 1950) was initiated over the said land vide Misc. Case No. 101 of 2009 on the ground that the said land is of the nature of Gair Majarua Khas, the transfer of which had taken place after 01.01.1946. The petitioner challenged the initiation of proceeding u/s 4(h) of the Act, 1950 by filing a writ petition being W.P.C No. 1429 of 2010 which was disposed of vide order dated 21.02.2011 giving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to decide the same. In the meantime the respondent no. 2 dropped the Misc. Case No. 101 of 2009 vide order dated 17.09.2010 and directed for issuance of no objection certificate to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted Land Possession Certificate by the respondent no. 4 on 02.05.2011. The respondent no. 2 vide order contained in Memo No. 1355 dated 14.05.2011 also issued no objection certificate for opening up of Retail Petroleum Outlet upon the said land, however by that time the Oil Company terminated the letter of appointment and as such the No Objection Certificate was surrendered on 12.10.2011. The petitioner, thereafter, applied for franchisee from another petroleum company and thereafter the Territory Manager of M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., vide letter dated 12.06.2012 wrote to the respondent no. 2 for issuance of no objection certificate and when no action was taken, the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court being W.P.C No. 5946 of 2012 which was disposed of on 02.01.2013 directing the respondent no. 2 to decide the application of the petitioner within 60 days. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 issued no objection certificate vide Certificate contained in Memo No. 523 dated 26.03.2013 and accordingly the petitioner was given the dealership by M/s Bharat Petroleum Corporation vide letter dated 30.04.2013. Since the petitioner was in requirement of update rent receipt of the said land, he again approached the respondent no. 4 for updating the rent receipt of the said land till 2014-15, but the same was kept pending compelling the petitioner to also file representation dated 22.08.2014 before the Additional Collector, Bokaro (respondent no. 3) but of no avail. 3. Since the petitioner was in requirement of update rent receipt of the said land, he again approached the respondent no. 4 for updating the rent receipt of the said land till 2014-15, but the same was kept pending compelling the petitioner to also file representation dated 22.08.2014 before the Additional Collector, Bokaro (respondent no. 3) but of no avail. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the rent of the said land has been paid by the petitioner till 2012-13 vide receipt dated 21.04.2012, however the respondent no. 4 is not issuing the current rent receipt. The petitioner is in lawful possession of the said land and there is no legal impediment in the issuance of the rent receipt. It is further submitted that the order dated 17.09.2010, passed in Misc. Case No. 101 of 2009, in a proceeding u/s 4(h) of the Act, 1950 as well as issuance of Land Possession Certificate and No Objection Certificate for opening of Petrol Pump upon the said land confirms the fact that the petitioner is in lawful possession of the said land and as such the said issue cannot be re-agitated. It is further submitted that once the right of the petitioner over the said land has been decided by the competent authority, the respondent no. 4 is duty-bound to issue update rent receipt of the land in favour of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the respondent no. 2 while passing the order dated 17.09.2010 held that the said piece of land was transferred by way of registered deed in the year 1938 and again in the year 1948 and as such the proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 2 had issued direction to the Circle officers to report about the cases of doubtful creation of Jamabandi after verifying the revenue records, but no such report was submitted by the respondent no. 4 disputing the Jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that the present writ petition involves the disputed question of facts which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4 disputing the Jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that the present writ petition involves the disputed question of facts which cannot be adjudicated in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the land is recorded in the record of rights as “Gair Mazarua Khas” and the transfer of the said land by way of registered deed of sale dated 23.11.1948 is hit by the provisions of section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 as the said transfer was subsequent to the appointed date i.e. 01.01.1946. It is also submitted that since the original settlement was made in the year 1948, all the subsequent transfers made in the year 1985 and 1986 do not confer any legal right to the subsequent transferee(s). Moreover, the creation of Jamabandi or cancellation of Jamabandi does not create any right, title and interest in favour of one or the other against the rightful owner of the land. The rent receipts are always issued without prejudice to the right and title and the same are not considered as the document of title. It is further submitted that in view of the land scam cases, the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag has issued Letter no. 234 dated 08.06.2012 to the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro (the respondent no. 2) not to register/mutate or issue rent receipt with respect to “Gair Mazarua Khas” lands. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the petitioner purchased the land in question by way of a registered deed of sale and thereafter the jamabandi of the land was also created in his favour. The petitioner paid the rent till 2011-12. However, the respondents stopped issuing the rent receipt by reasons of the order of the Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribag contained in letter no. 234 dated 08.06.2012. Nevertheless, on perusal of the said letter it would appear that the Commissioner, North Chotanapur Division has directed to all the Deputy Commissioners to restrain the sale, transfer, mutation and creation of Jamabandi with respect to the government land in accordance with law and also to provide the details of all the doubtful Jamabandi to the concerned District Sub-Registrars and also report about the action taken. In the case of Municipal Corpn., Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2015) 16 SCC 689 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- 13. It is settled that mutation does not confer any right and title in favour of any one or other, nor cancellation of mutation extinguishes the right and title of the rightful owner. Normally, the mutation is recorded on the basis of the possession of the land for the purposes of collecting revenue. 6. On perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it would be clear that the order of mutation neither confers nor extinguishes any right of the parties. The purpose of mutation is only to collect government revenue from a person who is in possession of the land. The revenue authorities while deciding the mutation cases are not suppose to look into the right and title of a person upon the said land. Once the mutation of the land is allowed and the rent receipts are being issued since long, the same cannot be stopped without any order passed in accordance with law. The respondent no. 4 has tried to justify his action relying upon the order of the respondent no. 2 contained in letter no. 1176 dated 22.06.2012 whereby the respondent no. 4 was directed to submit the report regarding running of Jamabandi in favour of private persons over the government land. Perusal of the said letter does not suggest that the respondent no. 4 was directed to stop any Jamabandi already running, rather the respondent no. 4 was asked only to report about the lands having illegal Jamabandi, for taking suitable action in that regard. The respondent no. 4 however wrongly construed the said order/letter and refrained from issuing the update rent receipt to the petitioner for the land in question which cannot said to be legally justified. The respondent no. 4 is not the authority to decide the right, title and interest of any person over the land while deciding the mutation case or granting the rent receipt. The petitioner has contended that a proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 was already initiated against the said land, however the same was dropped by the respondent no. 2 and the said fact has not been controverted by the respondent no. 4. The petitioner has contended that a proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 was already initiated against the said land, however the same was dropped by the respondent no. 2 and the said fact has not been controverted by the respondent no. 4. Merely because the land was recorded as “Gair Mazarua Khas” in the R.S Records of right does not entitle the Government to take possession of the land without taking due recourse of law. The ex-landlords were well within jurisdiction till vesting of Zamindari to settle the Gair Mazarua Khas land to any person and if the government authority finds that the said settlement was done by means of fraud detrimental to the interest of the State, the settlement may be cancelled by initiating a proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950. The petitioner has also claimed that the land was settled to his predecessor in interest before vesting of Zamindari and since then they were in possession of the land and after the purchase, the petitioner is in possession of the said land. The possession of the petitioner over the land in question is also evident from the rent receipts etc. filed by the petitioner which has not been controverted by the respondents. Moreover, a proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 was also initiated against the petitioner which was dropped by the competent authority, i.e. the respondent no. 2 and as such the stand of the respondents that since the land is a Gair Mazurwa Khas land, the rent receipt can not be issued, is not tenable. Though I find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the State that merely issuance of rent receipt in favour of the petitioner does not create any title in his favour for the land in question, yet, it may be observed that the respondents are not the appropriate authority to decide the title of the petitioner over the said land. The respondent authorities are required only to look into as to whether the petitioner is in possession of the land and if he is found in possession of the same over a period of time, the issuance of rent receipt for the land cannot be stopped. 7. The respondent authorities are required only to look into as to whether the petitioner is in possession of the land and if he is found in possession of the same over a period of time, the issuance of rent receipt for the land cannot be stopped. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the Respondent No. 4 (Circle Officer, Chouparan) is directed to issue update Rent Receipt to the petitioner for the land admeasuring 51.65 decimals situated at Khata No. 126, Plot No. 887, Thana No. 110 at Mouza-Ratari, District-Bokaro. It is however clarified that the observation, made hereinabove is only with regard to issuance of rent receipt and the same shall not affect the right of the respondent-state, in any manner to take suitable action in accordance with law claiming right, title and interest upon the land in question. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction.