JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents. 3. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, A.C. to S.C. (L&C) appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :- “ For quashing/setting aside the order dated 21.10.2004 passed by Deputy Collector Land Reforms (DCLR), Simdega, in Misc. Case No. 01/2012-13, whereby and whereunder in his revenue jurisdiction the learned Deputy Collector Land Reforms has entered into and decided the question of title and has canceled the long standing jamabandi in the name of petitioner in respect of lands of Khata no. 112, plot nos. 696, 697, 698, 699, 701, 702, 703, 777 situated at Tapudega, Pandrapani within T. Tanger police station, district Simdega and further ordered to enter the name of private respondent Suresh Sahu after such cancellation of the petitioner’s name from the revenue records and to issue rent receipts in the name of private respondent Suresh Sahu on the alleged ground that the documents produced by the petitioner appear to be doubtful and unbelievable.” 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the property in question are in possession of the petitioner through registered sale deeds which were owned by father of the petitioner since 1953-1954. He submits that his father has purchased the land through three registered sale deeds dated 19.11.54, 9.9.1953 and 9.9.1953 and thereafter his father got the property mutated in his name. It was claimed that earlier Hari bhajan Sahu had sold the land to Ram Dayal Kumhar through registered sale deed dated 18.03.1944 and thereafter it was again sold by registered sale deed dated 01.06.1950. He submits that title over the property is claimed by the petitioner through registered sale deeds and continuous mutation pursuant to such sale deeds. 6. However, private respondents herein filed application for cancellation of Jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner and pursuant thereto the Jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner has been cancelled and by the impugned order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector in Misc. Case No. 1/2012. He submits that the said authority has no jurisdiction to cancel the Jamabandi and running Jamabandi cannot be cancelled on the basis of doubt. Case No. 1/2012. He submits that the said authority has no jurisdiction to cancel the Jamabandi and running Jamabandi cannot be cancelled on the basis of doubt. He further submits that if the private respondent has any right or any claim then it is open for him to get his right, title and interest declared through competent court of civil jurisdiction. 7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent submits that the document on the basis of which the petitioner has claimed mutation was found to be doubtful and the property in fact belongs to the private respondent. Accordingly, they filed application for mutation in their name. Counsel appearing on behalf of private respondent submits that property involved in this case is recorded in the name of his ancestors namely Hari Bhajan Sahu and they are in possession of the property. Accordingly, he submits that the authority has rightly exercised his power for cancellation of Jamabandi running in the name of petitioner has directed for issuance of rent receipts in favour of the respondents. 8. Counsel appearing on behalf of the State by referring to the impugned order and inspection report submits that vide case no. 68 R 27/1996-97 the property stands entered in the name of the petitioner by way of succession/mutation. 9. After hearing counsel for the parties and after considering the materials available on record, this court finds that although the petitioner is claiming title over the property by virtue of registered sale deed, but during the course of hearing before the authority no document in connection with mutation were produced by the parties and it has been recorded in the impugned order that the Circle Officer has found the various documents doubtful and in the impugned order it has been recorded that the private respondent herein were found in possession of the property. 10. This court further finds that the petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit bringing on record the advertisement issued pursuant to the application filed by the petitioner for mutation of the property after the death of his father he also brought on record the order sheet of the mutation case no. 68 R 27/1996-97 wherein it has been recorded that the property is running in the name of father of the petitioner namely Dineshwar Prasad and the property was mutated. 11. 68 R 27/1996-97 wherein it has been recorded that the property is running in the name of father of the petitioner namely Dineshwar Prasad and the property was mutated. 11. Considering the fact that there is running Jamabandi in favour of the petitioner and the impugned order has been passed merely by expressing doubt, this court is of the considered view that long running Jamabandi cannot be cancelled in the manner it has been cancelled and it is open for the parties to get their right, title and interest and possession declared through a competent court of civil jurisdiction. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.10.14 in Misc. Case No. 1/2012-13 passed by Deputy Collector, Land Reforms (DCLR), Simdega, is hereby set aside. 12. It will be open to the parties to get their right, title and interest declared through competent court of civil jurisdiction. 13. It is made clear that any observation made by this court or any observation made in the impugned order will not prejudice the case of the parties in the civil suit.