ORDER : Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed herein-after, no notices are required to be issued on Respondent No. 4. The order dated 27.02.2017 which contains the grievance of the petitioner, is reproduced hereunder: “Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the order passed in another writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2172 of 1999(R) (Annexure-7) dated 12.3.2001 by the learned Single Judge of this Court where under order dated 28.6.1999 passed in restoration proceedings i.e. SAR Case No. 593 of 1994 against Gauri Shankar Prasad was quashed while remanding the matter for decision within a period of 3 months. Order dated 9.6.2002 passed by the SAR Court in Case No. 593 of 1994-95(Annexure-8) is referred to in support of the submission that application of restoration for land described in Khata no. 236, Plot No. 2626, area 15 Katas out of 27 Kathas was rejected. It is submitted that petitioner has thereafter been taken by surprise by notice at Annexure- 9 dated 30.3.2015 issued for delivery of possession by the Respondent No.3, Circle Officer, Ranchi of the same piece of land in reference to same SAR Case No. 593/1994-95. On objection being made by Annexure-10 dated 9.4.2015, the impugned notice at Annexure-11 in connection with the same piece of land however referred to different SAR Case No. 739 of 2005-06 has been again issued by the Respondent no.3, Circle Officer, Ranchi. Petitioner has therefore approached this Court as no certified copy of the proceedings or the order of the SAR Case No. 739/2005-06 has been issued to the petitioner while he is being threatened from eviction of his residential house situate on the said plot. Learned counsel for the Respondent State seeks and is allowed 2 weeks time to obtain instructions and file his response. Let the matter appear after 2 weeks under the same heading. In the meantime, status quo as on today be maintained in respect of the property in question.” 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent State seeks and is allowed 2 weeks time to obtain instructions and file his response. Let the matter appear after 2 weeks under the same heading. In the meantime, status quo as on today be maintained in respect of the property in question.” 3. State has thereafter filed a counter affidavit enclosing the order sheet of SAR Case No. 739/2005-06initiated by one Budhram Pahan, son of Bigal Pahan of village Baragain Thana-Sadar, district Ranchi against Kusum Devi, mother of the petitioner, seeking restoration of a piece of land bearing Khata No.236, Plot No. 2626 Mouza Badagai P.S. No. 184 having an area of 15 Kattha under section 71(A) of Chhota Nagpur Tenancy Act. 4. Counsel for the Respondent State essentially contends that the petitioner or his mother did not respond to the notices served upon her to oppose the prayer for restoration. As a result, application was allowed on 02.08.2006 itself by the SAR Court, Ranchi without contest. Respondent thereafter proceeded to take steps for delivery of possession to the dispossessed raiyyat through notice bearing memo no. 996(ii) dated 30.03.2015 (Annexure-11) impugned herein. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner neither has appeared before the Learned SAR Court, nor has approached the Appellate Court and obtained any stay on the order passed by the SAR Court. Counsel for the State further submits that the petitioner has not yet filed requisite court fee, stamp for issuance of certified copy of the order in SAR Case No. 739/2005-06. Learned counsel for the State had produced a notice contained in memo no. 447 dated 13.03.2006 issued in SAR Case No. 739/2005-06 in order to substantiate the plea that notices were duly issued and served on the mother of the petitioner. A perusal of the report of the process server dated 24.03.2006 on the back thereof however shows that when notices were sought to be effected, applicant had in fact informed that the land had already been restored. In such circumstances, notices were returned to the office of SAR Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the mother of the petitioner died on 26.10.1998 itself leaving behind the petitioner's father and the petitioner. Father of the petitioner also died on 02.10.2011, as per statement made at paragraph-28 of the writ petition. Petitioner is residing over the said property in the residential house constructed over it. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the mother of the petitioner died on 26.10.1998 itself leaving behind the petitioner's father and the petitioner. Father of the petitioner also died on 02.10.2011, as per statement made at paragraph-28 of the writ petition. Petitioner is residing over the said property in the residential house constructed over it. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the submission made on the earlier date that the proceedings for restoration of the same land were initiated by Bigal Pahan, father of Budhram Pahan and after remand by this Court vide order dated 12.03.2001 passed in CWJC No. 2172/199(R). S.A.R. Case No. 593/1994-95 stood rejected by order at Annexure-8 dated 09.06.2002 passed by the same SAR Court, Ranchi. Fresh proceeding initiated by Budhram Pahan, son of the previous applicant, suffers from res-judicata and limitation as well. All these grounds could have been urged by the petitioner before the SAR Court in the SAR Case No. 739/2005-06 if notice were validly served on the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner however submits that opportunity may be granted to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Court against the order passed in SAR Case No. 739/2005-06 on all available grounds of fact and law. In these circumstances, petitioner would deposit requisite fee, etc. in the concerned court for issuance of certified copy within the time frame, as may be directed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out with reference to the notice dated 13.03.2006 produced by the learned counsel for the State in SAR Case No. 739/2005-06 that evidently, notice was not effected. More over, the mother of the petitioner had already pre-deceased at the relevant point of time. 6. Considered the relevant materials pleaded by the counsel for the petitioner and the State and the submissions advanced on their behalf. In the background of the circumstances, referred to herein-above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should approach the Appellate Court against the order passed in SAR Case No. 739/2005-06 where all such questions of law and fact including the plea of resjudicata/limitation can be raised by him. Petitioner is also at liberty to demonstrate the grounds for delay in preferring the appeal on the plea of lack of proper service of notice before the Appellate Court for condonation of delay. Petitioner is also at liberty to demonstrate the grounds for delay in preferring the appeal on the plea of lack of proper service of notice before the Appellate Court for condonation of delay. Needless to say, the Appellate Court would consider the plea of the petitioner, in accordance with law, after due notice to the affected parties. 7. Let the petitioner approach the Learned Appellate Court within a period of four weeks from today. In the meantime, Respondent State would not take any coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to the notice bearing memo no. 996(ii) dated 30.03.2015 (Annexure-11). It would be open to the petitioner to seek interim protection from the Appellate Court thereafter which may be considered on its own merit in accordance with law after due notice to the affected parties. On deposit of requisite fee, the concerned SAR Court would issue the certified copy of the proceedings in SAR Case No. 739/2005-06 within a period of one week. The interim protection granted today, shall cease on expiry of four weeks period from today. 8. Writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations.