ORDER : 1. In W.P.C No.644 of 2016, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to issue rent receipt in his favour for the land in question. 2. In W.P.C No.2783 of 2017, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 12.01.2016 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Revenue Revision No.68 of 2012. Further prayer has been made for quashing the letter no.3540/Ra. dated 29.07.2015 issued under the signature of the Additional Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, whereby the proposal for cancellation of Jamabandi has been confirmed in terms with Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reform Act, 1950 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act, 1950’). The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the order dated 02.02.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Misc. Case No.58/02-03/22/03-04, whereby the Jamabandi opened in the name of Lal Maheshwari Nath Shahdeo has been cancelled. 3. In W.P.C No.3581 of 2017, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter no.3540/Ra. dated 29.07.2015 issued under the signature of the Additional Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, whereby the proposal for cancellation of Jamabandi has been confirmed in terms with Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 02.02.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 58/02-03/22/03-04, whereby the Jamabandi opened in the name of Lal Maheshwari Nath Shahdeo has been cancelled. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents restraining them from forcibly dispossessing the petitioner from the land, pertaining to Sub-Plot No. 492/A, area 10 acres, Plot No.492/B, area 20 acres, R.S Plot No. 492, Khata No. 383, situated at village Pundag District Ranchi, measuring total 30 acres. 4. The factual background of the case as appears from the record is that the land pertaining to Khata No.383 Plot Nos. 492, 496, 443 and 446, situated at village Pundag Thana No. 228 District Ranchi is recorded in R.S record of right as Gair Mazarua Malik in the name of Baralal Kandrap Nath Shahdeo under Khewat No.2 of the said village. 492, 496, 443 and 446, situated at village Pundag Thana No. 228 District Ranchi is recorded in R.S record of right as Gair Mazarua Malik in the name of Baralal Kandrap Nath Shahdeo under Khewat No.2 of the said village. According to the petitioners, the then landlord orally settled 80 acres of land of R.S Plot No. 492 and 8 acres out R.S Plot No. 496 of Khata No.383, village Pundag, Thana No.228, District Ranchi (hereinafter called the said land) by way of Hukumnama dated 31.01.1943 to one Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo and put him in possession of the said land. The settlee also paid rent of the said land to the landlord. The then landlord also settled R.S Plot Nos.443 and 496 to Kedar Nath Chaturvedi and R.S Plot No.446 to Nasirun Nisha. The landlord created a Trust known as “Chintamani Trust” and transferred the said land including other properties to the Trust and accordingly the settlee started paying rent to the Trust. After vesting of the land, the return was filed by the said Trust wherein Lal Maheswar Nath Shahdeo has been shown as settlee of the said land. A proceeding u/s 4(h) of the Act, 1950 was initiated against the Trust with respect to the said land and after due enquiry, the proceeding was dropped vide order dated 03.08.1959 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi. Thereafter, a demand was opened in the name of Lal Maheswar Nath Shahdeo by the order of Additional Collector, Ranchi vide letter no.3247 dated 07.12.1964 and he started paying rent to the State. After the death of Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo, his wife, namely, Draupadi Devi inherited the said land and came in physical possession of the same. Draupadi Devi sold 10 acres of the said land, which was marked as Sub Plot No.492/A of Khata No.383, to the mother of the petitioners-Lal Damodar Nath Shahdeo and Bara Lal Govind Nath Sahdeo, namely, Kanak Kumari Devi by virtue of registered deed dated 23.02.1983 and possession was also given to her. Draupadi Devi also sold 20 acres of said land, which was marked as Sub Plot No. 492/B of Khata No.383 to one Anapurna Devi by another sale deed dated 19.02.1983 and she also came in physical possession of the same. Draupadi Devi also sold 20 acres of said land, which was marked as Sub Plot No. 492/B of Khata No.383 to one Anapurna Devi by another sale deed dated 19.02.1983 and she also came in physical possession of the same. Both Kanak Kumari Devi and Anapurna Devi filed applications before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi for mutation of the names of the purchasers. The said applications were registered as Misc. Case No.1 of 1985-86 and Misc. Case No.2 of 1985-86. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ranchi vide order dated 01.07.1988 made a recommendation to the Additional Collector Ranchi for realization of rent from the applicants. In the meantime, a proceeding was initiated against Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo with respect of 88 acres of land pertaining to Plot No.492 and 496 of Khata No.383 situated at village Pundag Thana No.228, District Ranchi and by order dated 15.06.2006, the Jamabandi running in the name of Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo was cancelled behind the back of Kanak Kumari Devi and Anapurna Devi. Aggrieved by the said order, Kanak Kumari Devi and others filed an appeal being Revenue Appeal No.122 of 2006 which was also rejected. Thereafter, Kanak Kumari Devi alongwith Anapurna Devi filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. (C) No.4895 of 2007, which was allowed vide order dated 31.03.2008 and the order of cancellation of Jamabandi was set aside. Thereafter, the respondent-State of Jharkhand preferred a petition for modification of the order, being CMP No. 214 of 2008, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. After death of Kanak Kumari Devi, the petitioner- Lal Damodar Nath Sahdeo approached the respondents for issuance of rent receipt but nothing was done and then he filed a contempt case, being Cont. (Civil) Case No.52 of 2013, which was dismissed for default. A writ petition being W.P.(C) No.283 of 2011 was also filed by Anapurna Devi, which was allowed vide order dated 25.01.2011, and the letters patent appeal being L.P.A No. 244 of 2012 filed by the respondent-State was dismissed vide order dated 08.10.2012. Thereafter, the rent receipt was being issued to said Annapurna Devi. A writ petition being W.P.(C) No.283 of 2011 was also filed by Anapurna Devi, which was allowed vide order dated 25.01.2011, and the letters patent appeal being L.P.A No. 244 of 2012 filed by the respondent-State was dismissed vide order dated 08.10.2012. Thereafter, the rent receipt was being issued to said Annapurna Devi. The petitioner- Lal Damodar Nath Shahdeo has filed W.P.(C) No. 644 of 2016 for issuance of rent receipt in his favour wherein the respondent-State has filed counter affidavit stating that the Jamabandi of the Settlee was cancelled on 02.02.2012 by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and the same was confirmed on 29.07.2015 u/s 4(h) of the Act, 1950. Thereafter, the petitioner-Lal Damodar Nath Shahdeo has filed another writ petition being W.P.C No. 3581 of 2017 and the petitioners-Annapurna Devi and Bara Lal Govind Nath Sahdeo have filed W.P.C No. 2783 of 2017 challenging the order dated 02.02.2012 and other consequential relief. Hence, these three writ petitions. 5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that once the proceeding u/s 4(h) of the Act, 1950 was dropped on 03.08.1959 after a full-fledged enquiry, no fresh proceeding or order u/s 4(h) of the said Act could have been initiated as the same is barred by the principles of res judicata. It is further submitted that since the petitioners are claiming their right upon the said land by virtue of a settlement made in the year 1943 i.e much prior to 01.01.1946, the alleged enquiry or the proceeding u/s 4(h) of the Act, 1950 is completely illegal and the respondent authorities cannot invoke the provision of Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 due to lack of inherent jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the judgment dated 31.03.2008 passed in W.P.C No.4895 of 2007, quashing and setting aside the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi passed in Misc. Case No.58 of 2002-03/22 of 2003-04 and the Divisional Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division passed in Revenue Appeal No.122 of 2006, has attained its finality and, therefore, the order of remand passed by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi contained in letter no.1276 dated 31.3.2007 is illegal. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed also in violation of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, the long running Jamabandi cannot be cancelled without providing any opportunity of hearing. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed also in violation of the principles of natural justice. Moreover, the long running Jamabandi cannot be cancelled without providing any opportunity of hearing. It is also submitted that no notice of any proceeding initiated under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 was ever served upon the petitioners. The petitioners being the successors in interest of the settlees of the land in question are entitled to peaceful possession of the land particularly when the rent receipts pertaining to the said land were being issued to one of them-Anpurna Devi. It is further submitted that although a general notice was published in the newspaper, the petitioners being unaware of the same could not appear in the said proceeding initiated on the basis of the order contained in letter no.1276 dated 31.03.2007. It is further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi while passing the order dated 02.02.2012 was well aware of the fact that this Court vide order dated 31.03.2008 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4895 of 2007 has set aside the order for cancellation of the Jamabandi passed by him in Misc. Case No.58 of 2002-03/22 of 2003-04 and the order passed by the Commissioner, south Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Revenue Appeal No.122 of 2006. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the then Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi vide order dated 2.2.2012 passed in Misc. Case No. 58 of 2002-03/22 of 2003-04 cancelled the Jamabandi of land in question and the said order has been confirmed by the State Government vide letter no.3540/Rev. dated 29.07.2015 issued by the Additional Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand with respect to the said land. It is further summited that as per Register-II of village Pundag, since the demand with respect of land in question under Khata No. 383 plot no. 492 of village Pundag has not been opened in the name of the writ petitioner- Lal Damodar Nath Shahdeo, the question of issuance of rent receipt does not arise. The proposal under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 was sent by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi on the strength of the order passed by him in Misc. Case No.58 of 2002-03/22 of 2003-04 and the said proposal has been confirmed by the State Government and has been communicated vide letter no.3540/Ra. dated 29.07.2015. 7. The proposal under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 was sent by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi on the strength of the order passed by him in Misc. Case No.58 of 2002-03/22 of 2003-04 and the said proposal has been confirmed by the State Government and has been communicated vide letter no.3540/Ra. dated 29.07.2015. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents puts reliance on the following judgments: (i) Suraj Bhan & Ors. Vs. Financial Commissioner & Ors. reported in (2007) 6 SCC 186 ; and (ii) Sitaram Choubey & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1993 (2) PLJR 255. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioners have claimed that the then landlord settled some land including the land in question to Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo by way of oral Hukumnama dated 31.01.1943 and after vesting, the landlord submitted return showing Lal Maheswar Nath Shahdeo as the settlee. The said settlement was challenged in a proceeding u/s 4(h) of the Act, 1950, however, the same was dropped by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi vide order dated 03.08.1959. It is claimed by the petitioners that Jamabandi was also opened in the name of Lal Maheswar Nath Shahdeo and after his death, his wife inherited the property and sold the said land to the petitioners/predecessor-in-interest. Later on, the Jamabandi running in the name of Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo was cancelled, however the said order was set aside vide order dated 31.03.2008 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.4895 of 2007 on merit as well as on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and the modification petition filed by the State was also dismissed. The petitioner-Anpurna Devi had filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.283 of 2011, which was disposed of holding that the respondents are liable to accept the rent and L.P.A No. 244 of 2012 filed by the respondent-State against the order passed in W.P.(C) no.283 of 2011 was also dismissed vide order dated 08.10.2012. 9. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent-State is that the Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reform, Govt. of Jharkhand vide letter no.1276 dated 31.03.2007 had remitted Misc. 9. The thrust of the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent-State is that the Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reform, Govt. of Jharkhand vide letter no.1276 dated 31.03.2007 had remitted Misc. Case No. 58 of 2002-03/22 of 2003-04 to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and, thereafter, a notice was published in the daily newspaper ‘Hindustan’ on 09.08.2007, whereby it was informed that the said land including other land are under acquisition of the Jharkhand State Housing Board and hence the sale-purchase of the said land or making any type of construction over it would be illegal. 10. A proceeding was initiated u/s 4(h) of the Act, 1950 and finally vide order dated 02.02.2012, the Jamabandi running in the names of the petitioners were cancelled without hearing them. As soon as the petitioners came to know about the said order dated 02.02.2012, they filed Revenue Revision No.68 of 2012, which was dismissed on 12.01.2016. On cancellation of the Jamabandi of the said land, the respondents sought acquisition of the land for the Jharkhand State Housing Board. 11. However, on perusal of the record it appears that a proceeding u/s 4(h) of the Act, 1950 for the same land was initiated vide case no.01/1955-56 before the then Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ranchi and as per the direction of the Additional Collector, Ranchi, the S.D.O., Ranchi enquired the matter and finally dropped the proceeding vide order dated 3.8.1959, observing that the constitution of Trust was genuine and was neither to defeat the object and provisions of the Act, 1950, nor the same was in order to get more compensation/to put loss of revenue to the State Government. After the proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 was dropped, the rent of the said land was also fixed. The said fact has not been denied or disputed by the respondents and it has also not been stated that the said order was challenged by State in any higher Court. Thus, the same has attained finality. 12. A Bench of this Court in the case of Lakshmi Devi Vs. State Of Bihar, reported in 2003 (2) JLJR 159 , while dealing with the initiation of fresh proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 which was earlier dropped has held as under: “37. Thus, the same has attained finality. 12. A Bench of this Court in the case of Lakshmi Devi Vs. State Of Bihar, reported in 2003 (2) JLJR 159 , while dealing with the initiation of fresh proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 which was earlier dropped has held as under: “37. From what has been stated above, it is therefore clear that the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi had no jurisdiction to initiate fresh proceedings, under Section 4 (h) especially in view of the fact that the earlier proceedings under the same provisions were disposed off and decided in favour of the petitioners. According to the provisions of Section 4 (h) itself the State had the opinion to file an appeal but they chose not to do so. The only remedy for the State therefore, was to have filed an appeal but that option having not been availed of, the Deputy Commissioner could not have proceed to initiate a fresh proceeding. Clearly, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has acted without jurisdiction. 38. The State is not competent to reopen the matter. Similar view has been taken by yet another Division Bench in the case of Sharda Prasad Rai and Others v. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in AIR 1984 Pat 65 where the Division Bench, apart from holding the same view, has also held that principle of res-judicata applies to revenue matters.” 13. In the aforesaid case it has been held that the Dy. Commissioner has no jurisdiction to initiate fresh proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 when the earlier proceeding was dropped. Thus, initiation of fresh proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 and cancellation of Jamabandi are not tenable in law. 14. Moreover, on bare reading of section 4(h) of Act, 1950, it appears that the Collector has been empowered to make inquiries as to whether the transfer of any land after 01.01.1946 has been made with the object of defeating any provisions of the said Act or causing loss to the State or for obtaining higher compensation. However, on perusal of the impugned order dated 02.02.2012, it appears that the same was passed on the sole ground that the land is recorded in the R.S Record of right as Gairmajurwa Malik having nature of land “Tongri” and the Jamabandi earlier created for the said land was without any order of the competent authority. However, on perusal of the impugned order dated 02.02.2012, it appears that the same was passed on the sole ground that the land is recorded in the R.S Record of right as Gairmajurwa Malik having nature of land “Tongri” and the Jamabandi earlier created for the said land was without any order of the competent authority. No finding has been recorded by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as to whether the transfer was made with the object of defeating any provision of the Act, 1950 or for causing loss to the State or for obtaining higher compensation. Merely because the land is recorded as Gairmajurwa Malik does not entitle the Government to take possession of the land if there is valid settlement of the land. On perusal of the impugned order dated 02.02.2012 it also transpires that the settlement of the said land has not been annulled, rather only an order has been passed for cancellation of Jamabandi. Bare perusal of the said order suggests that the proceeding was started for cancellation of Jamabandi and not for annulling the transfer of land in purported exercise of power conferred under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950. 15. It further appears from the record that the learned Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.03.2008 passed in W.P.C No. 4895 of 2007 quashed the order dated 22.01.2007 passed in Revenue Appeal No.122 of 2006 and the order dated 15.06.2006 passed in Misc. Case No.58 of 2002-03/22 of 2003-04. The stand of the respondents is that the impugned order dated 02.02.2012 has been passed after remand of the Misc. Case No. 58 of 02-03/22 of 2003-04 by the Deputy Secretary, Dept. of Revenue and Land Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand vide letter dated 31.03.2007. It would, however, be evident that the order dated 31.03.2008 was passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.4895 of 2007 much after the order of remand dated 31.03.2007, thus, the said remand was itself illegal in view of the order dated 31.3.2008 passed in W.P.(C) No.4895 of 2007. Moreover the order of remand was also not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court in the pending proceedings related to the said land which clearly indicates the manner in which the respondent authorities have dealt with the present matter. Moreover the order of remand was also not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of this Court in the pending proceedings related to the said land which clearly indicates the manner in which the respondent authorities have dealt with the present matter. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has passed the impugned order dated 02.02.2012 being the subject matter of W.P.(C) No. 3581 of 2017, just to overreach the orders passed by this court in the earlier round of litigation. 16. Further argument of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the long running Jamabandi cannot be cancelled in a summary proceeding. It is the admitted fact that the Jamabandi of the said land was running in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and they were paying rent to the State as well as were also in possession of the same. By relying upon the judgments rendered in the cases of Suraj Bhan (Supra.) and Sitaram Choubey (Supra.), the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that an entry in the revenue records does not confer title of the land upon a person. Entry in the revenue records or creation of Jamabandi is only for the purpose of collection of revenue and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entry. 17. In the present case the petitioners are not claiming any right, title and interest upon the said land by the entry in the revenue record, rather they have claimed that there is a valid settlement in favour of their predecessor-in-interest by the ex-landlord. Thus, the judgments rendered in the cases of Suraj Bhan & Ors. (Supra.) and Sitaram Choubey & Ors. (Supra.) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 18. In L.P.A. No.142 of 2010 (State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Chanchala Devi) with L.P.A. No.307 of 2009 (State of Jharkhand Vs. D. Prasad), reported in 2018(2) JCR 486(Jhr.), learned Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.08.2017 has held that if the State Government is aggrieved by running of Jamabandi in favour of a particular raiyat, it can file a civil suit so that the title/ownership of the land can be decided by the competent civil court. D. Prasad), reported in 2018(2) JCR 486(Jhr.), learned Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.08.2017 has held that if the State Government is aggrieved by running of Jamabandi in favour of a particular raiyat, it can file a civil suit so that the title/ownership of the land can be decided by the competent civil court. There is otherwise a presumption in favour of the holder of the Jamabandi/mutation entry, especially when such entries are quite old. 19. On perusal of the record it appears that a proceeding was initiated in the year 2002-03 for cancellation of Jamabandi running in the name of the settlee and thereafter the same was cancelled, however behind the back of the present petitioners. The said order was subsequently set aside by this court on merit as well as for having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi again passed the impugned order dated 02.02.2012 behind the back of the petitioners, though the respondents have tried to justify their action by contending that the notice by way of paper publication was issued and the petitioners did not choose to appear in the case. 20. Learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ranchi Industrial Area Development Authority & Ano. Vs. M/s. Fillfured Marketing and Manufacturing Corporation & Ors. (L.P.A No. 80 of 2013) has held as under: “9. Cancellation of allotment is a harsh action, for which issuance of show cause notice must be effective indicating the specific violations. Individual notices to the allottes must have preceded the public notice. But the public notice was issued in the "Prabhat Khabar" on 16.7.2011 and only thereafter individual notices were issued to the allottees on 18.8.2012, which, in our considered opinion, cannot be said to be an effective show cause notice.” 21. In the aforesaid case it has been held that if any harsh action is sought to be taken by the state authorities, the individual notices must be preceded by the public notice. In the present case, it appears from the impugned order dated 02.02.2012 that after the public notice, individual notices were also issued to certain persons but the name of the petitioners did not find in place of that list. In the present case, it appears from the impugned order dated 02.02.2012 that after the public notice, individual notices were also issued to certain persons but the name of the petitioners did not find in place of that list. Thus, the impugned order dated 02.02.2012 is also vitiated having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the same has been passed without any individual notices to the petitioners. 22. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has lastly brought the fact to the notice of this Court that one Md. Muslim Ansari, purchaser of Plot No.496 under Khata No.383, preferred a writ petition, being W.P. (C) no. 1119 of 2006 against the recommendation of the Additional Collector, Ranchi to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi for cancellation of Jamabandi running in his favour. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 9.8.2006 quashing the said recommendation/order of the Additional Collector, Ranchi with an observation that the petitioner whose name is running in Register-II since 1983-84 is entitled to get rent receipt and, thus, the circle Officer, Ratu Anchal, Ratu, Ranchi was directed to accept the rent with respect to Plot No.496 under Khata no.383 of village Pundag and to grant rent receipt to him until the said Jamabandi in his name is held illegal or is cancelled by a Court of competent jurisdiction under the procedure established by law. The State of Jharkhand challenged the said order dated 9.8.2006 by preferring Letters Patent Appeal, being L.P.A. No.474 of 2006, which was also dismissed by the learned Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.10.2008. Thereafter, the State of Jharkhand preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.8279 of 2009 before the Hon’ble supreme Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 11.5.2009. 23. Another person, namely, Islam Ansari had also preferred a writ petition before this Court, being W.P.(C) No.1273 of 2008, for issuance of direction upon the respondents to issue rent receipt after accepting rent with regard to Plot No.304 and 262 of the same Khata i.e. Khata No.383 of village Pundag. The said writ petition was also disposed of vide order dated 9.2.2012, holding, inter alia, that the respondents have no authority to refuse acceptance of rent and issuance of rent receipt. 24. The said writ petition was also disposed of vide order dated 9.2.2012, holding, inter alia, that the respondents have no authority to refuse acceptance of rent and issuance of rent receipt. 24. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the impugned order dated 02.02.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Misc. Case No. 58/02-03/22/03-04 and other consequential orders passed against the petitioners are quashed. The respondents are directed to issue rent receipts in favour of the petitioners treating the Jamabandi standing in their names as legal and valid. So far the claim of right, title and interest upon the said land is concerned, the respondents are at liberty to move before the competent civil court, if so advised. 25. It is needless to say that the aforesaid observations made by this court are on the basis of the facts available on record and thus the same will not influence/prejudice the case of the parties in a proceeding before the competent civil court relating to the title over the land in question. 26. The present writ petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid observations.