JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Jitesh Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. 2. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 3. This Writ petition has been filed for the following relief :- “For a direction commanding upon the respondents for quash the order dated 26.10.2012 (Annexure-7) by the learned Divisional Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division at Chaibasa passed in Rent Assessment Appeal Case No. 8/11 in which the learned Divisional Commissioner, has without considering the facts and circumstances, without considering the order passed in Title Suit, Title Appeal as well as in Second Appeal by the Hon’ble High Court, Ranchi, dismissed the appeal, whereby and whereunder the land under question has been purchased by the petitioners vise registered sale deed on a valuable consideration money from the rightful owner and acquired the right, title, interest and possession over the land under question. Earlier that the land under question was Patit Land and one Radha Mahto come in possession over the land much earlier and reclaimed over the land by the process Korkar and converted into a very paddy land and also constructed the residential house. Later on a Title Suit vide No.162/265 of 1971-1976 has been filed in the court of Munsif, Jamshedpur by the Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd., (shortly mentioned as TISCO) by against the vendors of the petitioners which has been dismissed and given and decided in favour of the defendant, accordingly title appeal No. 1 /1997 by the Court of IInd Additional District Judge Jamshedpur has also been decided the case in favour of vendors of the petitioners and lastly TISCO Ltd. has filed a Second Appeal against the Parwati Mahto and others bearing S.A. No. 61/1979 (R) and same has been decided by the Patna High Court, Ranchi vide order dated 8th April 1996 by the Hon’ble Justice P.K. Deb (Prasun Kumar Deb) and dismissed the appeal by the Hon’ble High Court and given the findings in favour of Parwati Mahto and the same has been acquired the finality. The petitioners have filed a petition before the learned Deputy Commissioner U/s 67 – A of the C.N.T. Act (Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act) for assessment of rent in respect of the land under question and same has been dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner thereafter the petitioner has been filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner and the learned Dy. The petitioners have filed a petition before the learned Deputy Commissioner U/s 67 – A of the C.N.T. Act (Chhotanagpur Tenancy Act) for assessment of rent in respect of the land under question and same has been dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner thereafter the petitioner has been filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner and the learned Dy. Commissioner, learned Divisional Commissioner without considering the facts and circumstances of this case, without considering the law prevail in the present case, without considering the judgment given by the Hon’ble High Court who acquired finally has rejected the case of the petitioner in respect of fixation of the rent, hence the writ petition AND for issuance of a further writ / writs, order / orders, direction / directions for commanding upon the concerned respondents specially the respondent no. 2 to forebear from giving effect to or action pursuant to or in furtherance the said matter. And For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 12.05.2011 passed in rent assessment case no. 124/2009-10.” 4. Counsel for the petitioner by referring to the impugned order as contained in Annexure-7 dated 26.10.2012 passed in rent assessment appeal Case No. 8 of 2011 submits that the said appeal was filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum in rent fixation Case No. 124 of 2009-2010 dated 12.5.2011 under section 67 A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a title suit between the predecessor in interest of the vendors of the petitioner and Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as TISCO) being Title Suit No.162/265 of 1971 – 76 which was filed by TISCO for declaration of the right, title and interest over the property, but TISCO lost the said title suit against which they filed title Appeal before the District Judge which was numbered as Title Appeal No.1 of 1977 and thereafter before the High Court Second Appeal No.61/1979 (R) was also filed in this Court and ultimately TISCO lost in all the courts and the right, title and possession of the predecessor in interest of the vendors of the petitioner was confirmed. He submits that the adverse possession of the predecessor in interest of the vendors of the petitioner was declared in the said title suit. He submits that the adverse possession of the predecessor in interest of the vendors of the petitioner was declared in the said title suit. After passing of the judgments in the title suit, petitioner filed application under Section 67 A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 for assessment of rent and according to the petitioner, the petitioner has “Korkar” right over the property involved in this case. He submits that the judgment in the title suit is binding on the authorities of the State and accordingly the right of the predecessor in interest of the vendors of the petitioner which was declared in the title suit has to be given effect to by the authorities of the State. He submits that the application under Section 67-A was rejected by the original authority vide order dated 12.5.2011 against which the appeal was also dismissed without appreciating this aspect of the matter. 6. Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that admittedly the State was not a party in the title suit and any right, title and interest which was declared in favour of the petitioner was binding on the parties to the suit. He submits that the petitioner is claiming “Korkar” right over the properties but as per the records available with the state such “Korkar” right was never acquired by the writ petitioners or predecessor in interest of the vendors of the petitioners and accordingly he submits that the petition under Section 67-A of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 was rightly rejected by the authorities. He submits that for the purpose of assessment of rent under Section 67-A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908, the condition precedent is that the right of “Korkar” has been given. In such circumstances the application for assessment of rent under Section 67-A has been rightly rejected by the authorities. He further submits that the petitioner may get his right, title and interest declared through the competent court of civil jurisdiction, but so far as the assessment of rent under Section 67 A of the said Act is concerned, the same has been rightly rejected by the authorities. He submits that the appeal was also rejected on the same line and both the orders do not suffer from any perversity or illegality and accordingly the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 7. He submits that the appeal was also rejected on the same line and both the orders do not suffer from any perversity or illegality and accordingly the writ petition is fit to be dismissed. 7. After hearing counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record this Court finds that the predecessor in interest of the vendors of the petitioners were defendant in Title Suit No. 162/265 of 71-76 and the title suit was decided in favour of the predecessor in interest of the vendors of the petitioners. From the records of the case it appears that the appeal against the said title suit was dismissed and thereafter second appeal was also dismissed and accordingly right, title and interest of the predecessor in interest of the vendors of the petitioner over the suit property vis-à-vis TISCO was declared by the competent court of civil jurisdiction. 8. This Court does not find any merit in the contention of the petitioners that the title suit which was decided between TISCO and the predecessor in interest of the vendors of the petitioner in which admittedly the State was not the party, is binding on the State also. 9. This court further finds that there is no materials on record to show that “Korkar” right was ever acquired by the petitioners. 10. Section 67 A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 reads as under :- “[67A. Assessment of rent on land converted into korkar. - (1) (a) Where a Raiyat converts land into Korkar in accordance with the provision of Section 64, no rent shall be payable for such land until after the expiration of a period of four years from the end of the agricultural year in which the first crop is harvested. (b) After the expiry of the period specified in clause (a), the landlord may assess rent on the said land at a rate not exceeding to the rate prevailing in the village for third class rice land, or if according to the custom of the village only one-half of the said rate is payable for Korkar at a rate not exceeding one-half of the said rate. (2) When a landlord assesses rent under sub-section (1), he shall send to the Deputy Commissioner a notice in duplicate in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars. (2) When a landlord assesses rent under sub-section (1), he shall send to the Deputy Commissioner a notice in duplicate in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars. (3) No rent shall be recoverable by a landlord in respect of land converted by a Raiyat into Korkar unless the provisions of sub-section (2) have been complied with. (4) On receipt of the notice referred to in sub-section (2), the Deputy Commissioner shall give notice of the contents thereof to the Raiyat and may of his own motion or on the application of the Raiyat, and after making such inquiry as he considers necessary, by an order, settle rent for the said land at a rate not exceeding the rate prevailing in the village for third class rice land or if, according to the custom of the village only one-half of the said rate is payable for Korkar at a rate not exceeding one-half of the said rate.] [(5) Nothing in this Section shall prevent the person who has converted land into Korkar under the provisions of Section 64 from filing an application before the Deputy Commissioner and getting the rent assessed in the event of the landlord failing to take steps for assessment of the rent].” 11. This Court also agrees with the arguments advanced by the counsel appearing for the state that rent assessment under Section 67-A cannot be done unless a person acquires “Korkar” right. As there is no material on record to show that the predecessor in interest of the vendors of the petitioners or the petitioners had acquired any “Korkar” right in connection with the property involved in this case, this Court is of the considered view that the application filed by the petitioners under section 67A of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 has been rightly rejected by the original authority and confirmed by the appellate authority. 12. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders, therefore, this writ petition is dismissed.