JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the original petitioner (since deceased) for the following reliefs:- i. “For challenging the order dated 24.12.2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi as well as the order dated 09.02.2002 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms in Lease Case No. 40/97-98 whereby a salami of Rs. 22,60,000/- has been imposed on the petitioner in respect of the land possessed by the petitioner since 16.06.1959 which according to the petitioner consists of dwelling house. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order by which the proposal of the lease has been made in favour of the private respondent no. 5 by ignoring right, title and interest of the petitioners with respect to the land, in question, under the provision of khasmahal Chapter II Rule 9 (2), (IV). ii. For directing the respondents to renew the permanent Lease in favour of the petitioners as per provisions of the T.P. Act to the entire Land over which the petitioners have been continuing in the possession since 1959., And, iii. For a direction upon the respondents not to impose any salami in view of the fact the petitioner are old tenants and got right title since 16.6.59. 2. After the death of writ petitioner, the legal heirs of the original petitioner have been substituted and thereafter an amendment petition being I.A. No. 5473 of 2017 has been filed wherein the legal heirs of the petitioner have made a prayer that original prayer made in the writ petition seeking mandamus directing the respondents to renew the permanent lease in favour of the petitioner may be deleted and it is now the specific case that the property is not the kahsmahal land. This ground has also been taken by the present petitioners in the supplementary affidavit filed by the present petitioners. 3. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the fixation of lease rent by the respondent State in favour of respondent no. 5 treating him as a tresspasser although the specific case of the writ petitioners is that the respondent no. 5 is their tenant. The petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to various documents showing that the respondent no. 5 has admitted to be a tenant of the writ petitioners. 4. Mrs. Abha Verma, counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 is their tenant. The petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to various documents showing that the respondent no. 5 has admitted to be a tenant of the writ petitioners. 4. Mrs. Abha Verma, counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 submits that a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 5 bringing on record the order dated 12.10.1998 wherein it was admitted by the petitioner that they are willing to enter into a fresh lease and accordingly the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 5 were rightly treated as trespasser. Counsel for the respondent no. 5 has also drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment passed in Eviction title Suit No. 70/98 dated 17.10.2015 wherein the eviction title suit has been decided between the parties against which respondent no. 5 has gone in appeal but was not in a position to give the number of the title appeal. It is not disputed by the parties that the matter is sub-judice before the appellate authority. 5. Counsel for the respondent state on the other hand submits that the State has taken a specific stand in the counter affidavit that the impugned order is yet to attain finality as the matter has been sent to the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand , Ranchi vide letter no 426 dated 23.11.2003 issued by the Respondent no 2 and accordingly it is submitted that the writ petition is pre-mature. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds no reason to give any relief to the writ petitioner on account of following facts and reasons:- a. Considering the facts of the case, it appears that initially the original writ petitioner had filed the writ petition on the basis that the property involved in this case is khasmahal property and subsequently, after death of the original writ petitioner the present petitioners were substituted and a supplementary affidavit as well as an application for amendment has been filed taking a different stand claiming that the property is not a khasmahal property as per the record. b. Thus the claim of the original petitioner was that that the property is khasmahal property and in the petition for amendment a different and conflicting stand is being taken that the property is not a khasmahal property, the issue whether the property is khasmahal property or not cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction particularly when the stand of the substituted heirs of the original petitioner is contradictory to the stand taken by the original writ petitioner (since deceased). c. So far as the right/status of the respondent no. 5 is concerned, the issue regarding inter-se relationship between the petitioners on one hand and that of the respondent no 5 on the other hand is yet to attain finality as the appeal is pending before the appellate authority against the judgment passed in Eviction Suit No. 70/98 in which one of the issue is whether there is any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant. In such circumstances this Court is not inclined to give any findings so far as relationship between the parties are concerned. d. Be that as it may, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India on account of disputed questions of facts involved in this case. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with a liberty to the parties to get their right, title & interest declared through a competent court of civil jurisdiction. Interlocutory Application seeking amendment of the writ petition is also dismissed. On the basis of the submissions made by the counsel for the respondent state that the impugned order has not yet attained finality as the matter is pending before the appropriate authority who has yet to take a final decision, the parties may take appropriate steps for redressal of their grievances as and when such order is passed. 7. In view of the aforesaid the writ petition is dismissed, the I.A. No.5473 of 2017 is also dismissed.