ORDER: D.N. Patel, J. 1. It is a claim of this petitioner that his father Budhu Singh was owner of the property in question and upon his death the land in question was mutated in the name of this appellant (original petitioner) and his mother-Manturani Devi as on 10th July, 2006. Thereafter, for five years this entry remained as it is. 2. After the period of five years, Rukmini Devi and Urmila Devi claimed that they are owner of the property in question because their father was same-Budhu Singh. Rukmini Devi and Urmila Devi are respondent Nos.8 and 9. They are claiming ownership and hence they preferred appeal before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Ranchi for quashing the mutation entry which was already entered into the revenue records in the name of this appellant (original petitioner) as well as in the name of Manturani Devi. The appeal preferred by respondent Nos.8 and 9 was allowed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Ranchi vide order dated 12th July, 2012 (Annexure-8). Thus, the revenue entry mutated in favour of this appellant as well as in favour of Manturani Devi was quashed and set aside and the land in question was mutated in the name of Rukmini Devi and Urmila Devi vide order dated 12th July, 2012 (Annexure-8 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Land Reforms, Ranchi allowed the appeal preferred by respondent Nos.8 and 9 vide order dated 12th July, 2012 by quashing the mutation entry in favour of this appellant as well as in favour of Manturani Devi and the matter was remanded to Circle Officer, Namkum. As on today, the matter is pending before the Circle Officer, Namkum. 4. Meanwhile, before Circle Officer, Namkum decides the case, a revision application was preferred by this appellant against the order of Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Ranchi dated 12th July, 2012 which was also dismissed vide order dated 9th January, 2013 (Annexure-12 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). 5. One more fact has been brought to the notice of this Court by the counsels of both the sides that Probate Case No.35 of 2002 was also instituted by one Premnath Singh who is son of brother of Budhu Singh. 5. One more fact has been brought to the notice of this Court by the counsels of both the sides that Probate Case No.35 of 2002 was also instituted by one Premnath Singh who is son of brother of Budhu Singh. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, Probate Case No.35 of 2002 was converted into Title Suit No.4 of 2004 and the same is pending before the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. Thus, two proceedings are pending, viz.- (a) proceeding before the Circle Officer, Namkum in pursuance of the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Ranchi dated 12th July, 2012 (Annexure-8 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal), and (b) Title Appeal No.4 of 2004 is pending before the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. Both the aforesaid proceedings are pending for the same land which is in question in this Letters Patent Appeal. 6. Much has been argued out by the counsel for the appellant that Rukmini Devi and Urmila Devi are not the daughters of Budhu Singh and they are not the daughters of Dhanmanti Kuer. No evidence has been given by Rukmini Devi nor by Urmila Devi that they are daughters of Budhu Singh and they are daughters of Dhanmanti Kuer. Even no affidavit has been filed by Rukmini Devi or Urmila Devi to this effect. Moreover, they have preferred appeal before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms after five long years. No delay condonation application was ever preferred by Rukmini Devi and Urmila Devi before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms because they were challenging the order passed by Circle Officer, Namkum dated 10th July, 2006 in the year 2012. Thus, without delay condonation application preferred, the appeal was allowed by Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, vide order dated 12th July, 2012 (Annexure-8). Despite Title Suit No.4 of 2004 was pending, compensation for the land acquired has been given under collusion by the Government of Jharkhand to respondent Nos.8 and 9. Even First Information Report should be filed against the officers of the State of Jharkhand. 7. Counsel for respondent Nos.8 and 9 has submitted that this appellant is also not an angle. His father is different than Budhu Singh, as stated in bail application. The matter was remanded by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, vide order dated 12th July, 2012 (Annexure-8) to the aforesaid Circle Officer. 8. 7. Counsel for respondent Nos.8 and 9 has submitted that this appellant is also not an angle. His father is different than Budhu Singh, as stated in bail application. The matter was remanded by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, vide order dated 12th July, 2012 (Annexure-8) to the aforesaid Circle Officer. 8. Be as it may, all these contentions can be raised by this appellant before Circle Officer, or before the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Title Suit No.4 of 2004. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding W.P.(C) No.4027 of 2013 vide dated 19th February, 2015 and we see no reason to interfere with the said order. Nonetheless, we hereby direct respondent Nos.8 and 9 to file an affidavit as well as undertaking before this Court that if they will lose ultimately the matter, they will refund the amount which they have received towards the compensation for the land in question. This affidavit and undertaking shall be filed by respondent Nos.8 and 9 within a period of three weeks from today so that in case they lose the matter ultimately, the amount received by them towards the compensation shall have to be returned. This affidavit as well as the undertaking shall be filed by respondent Nos.8 and 9 separately, copy of which shall be given to this appellant as well as to the State of Jharkhand failing which this matter shall be listed again on the Board on 31st October, 2018. 9. We, hereby, direct the Circle Officer, Namkum to decide the case as early as possible and practicably, in no case later than twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of order of this Court. 10. We also direct Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi to decide Title Suit No.4 of 2004 as early as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order of this Court. Both the parties to the litigation shall co-operate the hearing before the Circle Officer, Namkum as well as before the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in title Suit No.4 of 2004. 11. With these observations, this Letters Patent Appeal is, hereby, disposed of. 12. Both the parties to the litigation shall co-operate the hearing before the Circle Officer, Namkum as well as before the Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in title Suit No.4 of 2004. 11. With these observations, this Letters Patent Appeal is, hereby, disposed of. 12. The affidavit and undertaking, as directed by this Court shall be given to the Registrar General of this Court within a period of three weeks from today which shall be taken on record.