JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Rahul Gupta, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assisted by Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent nos. 8 & 9. 3. Heard Mr. Rajesh Lala, counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2. 4. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, A.C. to S.C. (L&C) appearing on behalf of respondent-State. 5. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of direction to respondent no. 1 for payment of dues and benefits accrued for transfer of raiyati land situated in Mouza Barmuri Khata No. 50, Plot Nos. 41, 49, 50, 51, 52, 62,67,188,189 and 190 Total Area 3.12 acres (ii) For issuance of direction to the respondent no. 4 to grant permission to sale the aforesaid plots by the rightful owner-petitioner to Respondent No. 1 to order dated 24.05.1993 in Case No. 4987/1987 by Assistant Settlement Officer, Dhanbad and continuous Khatiyan of the petitioner. (iii) For quashing the order dated 14.11.1996(Annexure-10) passed by respondent no. 6 and order dated 25.2.1997 (Annexure-11) passed by respondent no. 4 in C.N.T. Case No. 1/1991. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that one Sadhu Charan Pal was the recorded raiyat in connection with Khewat No. 7, Khata No. 50 total 3.12 acres of village Barmuri. He expired leaving behind his sole daughter namely Rohini Bala Dasi who had a son namely Bhavtaran Manjhi @ Khanku Pal who was the father of the petitioner. He submits that Sadhu Charan Pal had gifted the property involved in this case by way of registered gift deed on 23.02.1926 in favour of his daughter namely Rohini Bala Dasi and the petitioner claims to be the owner of the property by virtue of being the descendants of the recorded raiyat namely Sadhu Charan Pal. He submits that although the registered deed of surrender dated 23.02.1935 was executed by Rohini Bala Dasi in favour of ex-landlord namely Surendra Laik and others, but the same was not acted upon and the petitioner or their ancestors continued to remain in possession of the property. In order to claim possession of the property counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 24.05.1993 passed under Section 89 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act in case no. 4987/87 which was instituted by the petitioner for correction of the record of rights. In order to claim possession of the property counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 24.05.1993 passed under Section 89 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act in case no. 4987/87 which was instituted by the petitioner for correction of the record of rights. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to this order and pointed out that the property was declared to be Fouti and was recorded in the name of Bihar Sarkar but pursuant to the application filed by the petitioner the same was rectified and directed to be recorded in the name of the petitioner. Accordingly, Khatiyan was rectified. He submits that the order dated 24.05.1993 was never challenged before any authority and the same has become final. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is enough material to show that in spite of registered deed of surrender dated 23.02.1935 the same was not acted upon and the petitioner or the ancestors of the petitioner being descendants of Sadhu Charan Pal were in continuous possession of the property. He submits that in this background and in the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the petitioner had filed application for grant of permission under Section 49 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 before the Deputy Commissioner for sale of this land in favour of respondent no. 1, i.e. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. He submits that pursuant to the application filed, the Deputy Commissioner vide impugned order dated 30.10.1996/14.11.1996 refused to grant permission on the ground that the property was surrendered by way of registered deed dated 23.02.1935 by Rohini Bala Dasi and accordingly the descendants of Rohini Bala Dasi cannot claim the title over the property. He submits that vide Annexure-10 it was recommended and ultimately the final order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner in C.N.T. Case No. 01/1991 who on the basis of the said report passed final order dated 25.02.1997 refusing to grant permission for transfer under Section 49 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act 1908. He further indicated that it was also recorded that the sale by Jamini Bala Dasi in connection with the property involved in this case was also not as per law. Accordingly, the authority held that there was no material to substantiate the claim of title over the property. He further indicated that it was also recorded that the sale by Jamini Bala Dasi in connection with the property involved in this case was also not as per law. Accordingly, the authority held that there was no material to substantiate the claim of title over the property. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the aspect of the matter that the petitioner or his ancestors were throughout in possession of the property in spite of the deed of surrender dated 23.02.1935 has not been taken into consideration by the authorities and accordingly the reason for refusing permission for transfer under Section 49 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 is perverse and the same is fit to be set aside. 7. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that on the basis of registered deed of surrender dated 23.02.1935 the wives of ex-landlord claim to have executed Sada Hukumnama dated 24.02.1935 in favour of Jamini Bala Dasi who died on 16.02.1966 but one imposter of Jamini Bala Dasi executed sale deed dated 31.03.87 in favour of respondent no. 1 and upon enquiry it was found that Jamini Bala Dasi had died as back as in the year 16.02.1966 and accordingly the sale deed dated 31.03.1987 in favour of respondent no. 1 by Jamini Bala Dasi was of no consequence. The crux of the argument of the petitioner is that irrespective of the registered deed of surrender dated 23.02.1935 the descendants of the recorded raiyat namely Sadhu Charan Pal including Rohini Bala Dasi continued to be the recorded tenant and deed of surrender dated 23.02.1935 was of no consequence as the same was never acted upon. 8. On the other hand, counsel appearing on behalf of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. has filed counter affidavit and has taken a specific stand at paragraph no. 17 that a forged registered deed was executed by fictitious lady claiming herself to be Jamini Bala Dasi in the year 1987 and upon verification it was found that Jamini Bala Dasi died much prior to the execution of the registered deed and it has been specifically mentioned in the counter affidavit that no consideration of the value of the land was paid by the Eastern Coalfields Ltd. pursuant to the said fictitious registered deed and the title remained with Jamini Bala Dasi and after her death it was remained with their legal heirs and successors. 9. 9. This respondent has also taken a stand that the legal heirs of the Jamini Bala Dasi have entered into agreement dated 28.11.2007 with the respondent no. 1 and has taken possession of the property involved in this case. Counsel for the respondent has also referred to the rent receipts issued in the name of Jamini Bala Dasi by the ex-landlord and also rent receipts issued after coming into force of Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950 in the name of Jamini Bala Dasi. 10. The private respondents herein have also filed a counter affidavit and have brought on record the agreement dated 28.11.2007 which has been referred in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 1. Counsel for the private respondent submits that as the property in question was surrendered by way of registered deed by Rohini Bala Dasi in favour of ex-landlord and subsequently the same was settled by the wives of ex-landlord by way of Sada Hukumnama dated 24.02.1935 in favour of Jamini Bala Dasi and Jamini Bala Dasi having expired on 16.02.1966 and the private respondent being the descendants of Jamini Bala Dasi are the true owners of the property. He also submits that the possession has been handed over by the private respondents to the respondent no. 1 and possession of the private respondent is also confirmed by rent receipts issued by the State. Accordingly, private respondents submits that the petitioner herein had no right title and interest over the property and therefore the permission under Section 49 has been rightly declined to the petitioner. The respondent also submits that there is dispute regarding right, title , interest and possession in connection with the property involved in this case and accordingly this writ petition cannot be decided on account of disputed questions of facts and law. Counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (1992) 4 SCC 61 , paragraph no. 6 which reads as under:- “Mr. Arun Jetly, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent 1 has supported the impugned judgment on the ground that prayer for issuing a direction against Delhi Administration and Commissioner of Police who were respondents 1 and 2 was also made. 6 which reads as under:- “Mr. Arun Jetly, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent 1 has supported the impugned judgment on the ground that prayer for issuing a direction against Delhi Administration and Commissioner of Police who were respondents 1 and 2 was also made. It has to be appreciated that the present appellants were respondents 3 and 4 before the High Court; and the High Court has by the impugned order, considered it fit to allow the prayer of the respondents against them for removal of the grills for access to the backyard. According to the stand of the landlord-respondent, since the police were taking a partisan attitude against her, the filing of a writ petition became necessary. We are unable to follow this argument. There is no doubt that the dispute is between two private persons with respect to an immovable property. Further, a suit covering either directly a portion of the house-property which is in dispute in the present case or in any event some other parts of the same property is already pending in the civil court. The respondent justifies the step of her moving the High Court with a writ petition on the ground of some complaint made by the appellants and the action by the police taken thereon. We do not agree that on account of this development, the respondent was entitled to maintain a writ petition before the High Court. It has repeatedly been held by this Court as also by various High Courts that a regular suit is the appropriate remedy for settlement of disputes relating to property rights between private persons and that the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of a statutory authority is alleged. And in such a case, the Court will issue appropriate direction to the authority concerned. If the real grievance of the respondent is against the initiation of criminal proceedings, and the orders passed and steps taken thereon, she must avail of the remedy under the general law including the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies, under the general law, civil or criminal, are available. The High Court cannot allow the constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for which remedies, under the general law, civil or criminal, are available. It is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a suit or application available to a litigant. The jurisdiction is special and extraordinary and should not be exercised casually or lightly. We, therefore, hold that the High Court was in error in issuing the impugned direction against the appellants by their judgment under appeal. The appeal is accordingly allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the writ petition of the respondents filed in the High Court is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” He submits that the petitioner may get their right, title and interest decided through a competent court of civil jurisdiction and no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition. 11. Considering the materials on record and after hearing the counsel for the parties this court finds that the petitioner is claiming right, title and interest over the property through Rohini Bala Dasi who is the descendants of the recorded raiyat and the private respondents herein are claiming their right, title, interest and possession over the property by virtue of registered deed of surrender dated 23.02.1935 coupled with one Sada Hukumnama said to have been executed in favour of Jamini Bala Dasi and the respondent herein are the descandants or successor in interest of the Jamini Bala Dasi. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this court finds that both the parties, the petitioners as well as private respondents have placed documents in connection with their claim of possession, but they are seriously disputing each others title over the property. The impugned order relating to grant of permission under Section 49 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 has been declined to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner could not satisfy the authority on the point of their title over the property and by the impugned order it has also been observed that the claim of title of Jamini Bala Dasi was also not substantiated. In such circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the impugned order refusing to grant permission under Section 49 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act 1908 has been rightly passed, but the same ought to have been subject to declaration of right, title and interest of the parties through competent court of civil jurisdiction. In view of the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondent reported in (1992) 4 SCC 61 this court is of the considered view that Article 226 of the constitution of India cannot be invoked to decide the title dispute between the parties in connection with property. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with the liberty to the parties to get their right, title, interest and possession declared through a competent court of civil jurisdiction. Once the right, title possession and interest of the parties are decided, then all consequences shall follow accordingly. 14. Before concluding, this court finds it fit to record that during the course of arguments this court observed that as per the respondents agreement dated 28.11.2007 in connection with the property involved in this case has been entered into by the private respondents (who claim the property through Jamini Bala Dasi) with respondent no. 1 and possession of the property has been handed over to the respondent no. 1. Admittedly no permission under Section 49 or any other section of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 has been sought from the deputy commissioner prior to entering into this agreement although in the impugned order it has been observed that the Jamini Bala Dasi also had no title over the property. Upon this counsel for the private respondent has strenuously argued that for the purpose of coming into possession of the property and for the purpose for which the agreement has been entered into, no permission under Section 49 or any other provision of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was required to be taken. 15. This court is restraining itself from giving any finding in connection with agreement dated 28.11.2007, but this judgment will not stand in the way of respondent state authorities, if so advised, to look into the legality and validity of the said agreement dated 28.11.2007 which has been entered into between the respondent no 1 and the private respondents in the light of the provisions of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. This observation is being made due to the reason that the transaction between the private respondent and respondent No-1 has a direct bearing on the claim of the petitioners and private respondents.