JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. B.V. Kumar, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assisted by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Advocate. 2. Heard Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha, counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.6. 3. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 6. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief : “For quashing the orders dated 5.5.2003 and 10.9.2002 passed by the respondent no.2 and 3 respectively whereby the respondent no.2 did not interfere with the order as contained in Annexure – 6 and has been pleased to dismiss the revision at the stage of admission itself without considering its earlier remand order dated 29.9.1999.” 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that a title suit was filed by the petitioner being Title Suit No. 20 of 1983 in which the State authorities were parties and one private person was also a party. The suit was decreed on 30.09.1985 in favour of petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition for fixation of rent and a proposal for fixation of rent was sent from respondent no.5 to the respondent no.4 for the assessment of rent. However, the respondent no. 4 rejected the proposal of the respondent no.5 vide order dated 04.05.1993 after hearing the private respondent herein. Against this the petitioner filed appeal before the appellate authority, the appeal was also dismissed and thereafter a revision was filed in the court of Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh which was numbered as Hazaribagh Revision Case No. 155 of 1994. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the said revision application was disposed of by way of remand vide order dated 28.09.1999 and he submits that in the order of remand the discrepancies in the report of Anchal Adhikari was also indicated. The Commissioner while remanding the matter to the Additional Collector for re-examination in the light of the discrepancies also recorded that the petitioner as well as the private respondent herein are claiming the property through various documents in which property description do not tally exactly. 6. The Commissioner while remanding the matter to the Additional Collector for re-examination in the light of the discrepancies also recorded that the petitioner as well as the private respondent herein are claiming the property through various documents in which property description do not tally exactly. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order of remand, the Additional Collector ought to have re-examined the matter and for the purposes of re-examination a fresh inspection through the Circle officer was necessary to determine as to whether the petitioner as well as the private respondent are claiming the same property or not. The petitioner claims that he is in possession of the property and he has constructed a house over the property. 7. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that pursuant to the order of remand a fresh order was passed by the Additional Collector but the said authority held that the petitioner as well as the private respondent are claiming the same property although the directions which was issued by the order of remand was not carried out. He further submits that pursuant to the order of remand, no fresh inspection was carried out and accordingly it was not possible for the Additional collector to record a finding that both the petitioner as well as the private respondent are claiming the same property. He further submits that against the order passed by the Additional Collector, the petitioner filed revision before the Commissioner but the Commissioner also did not appreciate this aspect of the matter and dismissed the revision by way of a cryptic order passed in Mutation Revision No. 108 of 2002. 8. Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent on the other hand submits that the private respondent was never party in Title Suit No.20 of 1983 and accordingly decree passed in the said title suit is not binding on them. He further submits that the private respondent is in possession of the property involved in this case by virtue of independent documents i.e., a customary hukumnama and the jamabandi is running in the name of the private respondent. However, he does not dispute the fact that pursuant to the order of remand there was no fresh inspection conducted through the Circle Officer to determine as to whether the petitioner as well as the private respondent are claiming the same property or not. However, he does not dispute the fact that pursuant to the order of remand there was no fresh inspection conducted through the Circle Officer to determine as to whether the petitioner as well as the private respondent are claiming the same property or not. He also submits that pursuant to the order of remand, a fresh order was passed by the Additional Collector giving a clear finding that the petitioner as well as the private respondent are claiming the same property and he submits that the order after remand which is dated 10.09.2002, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and accordingly the same did not call for any interference. Therefore, the mutation Revision No.108 of 2002 was dismissed by the Commissioner. He submits that the impugned orders do not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State also supports the submission made by the private respondent. 10. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the material on record, this Court finds that a decree dated 30.09.1985 was passed in Title Suit No. 20 of 1983 in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant to such decree, the petitioner filed a petition for fixation of rent and respondent no.5 recommended in favour of the petitioner and the recommendation was made to the respondent no.4 for assessment of rent. Before the respondent no.4, the private respondent also appeared and claimed the property involved in this case through independent documents and also asserted that the Jamabandi is running in the name of the private respondent. In such circumstances, the respondent no.4 vide order dated 04.05.1993 refused to assess the rent in favour of the petitioner. Against which, the petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed and ultimately the petitioner filed revision case being Hazaribagh Revision Case No.155 of 1994, before the Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh. The Commissioner decided the case vide order dated 28.09.1999 and pointed out various discrepancies in the order passed by the Additional Collector which included certain discrepancies in the report of the Circle officer as well. The Commissioner had remanded the matter to the Additional Collector to re-examine and decide the case in the light of the discrepancies as discussed in the order of remand dated 28.09.1999. 11. The Commissioner had remanded the matter to the Additional Collector to re-examine and decide the case in the light of the discrepancies as discussed in the order of remand dated 28.09.1999. 11. This Court finds that both the petitioner and the private respondent herein are claiming title over the property through independent documents and the description of the property as claimed by the petitioner and the description of the property as claimed by the private respondent required a fresh inspection by the Circle Officer in view of the discrepancy which was pointed out by the Commissioner in the order dated 28.09.1999. After the order of remand, the Additional Collector decided the case afresh vide order dated 10.09.2002 although admittedly no fresh inspection was carried out and the Additional Collector recorded a finding that the petitioner well as the private respondent are claiming the same property through independent documents. This Court finds that the order dated 10.09.2002 passed pursuant to the order of remand by the Commissioner was not in consonance with the directions and observations which was made by the Commissioner while remanding the matter. In order to resolve the issue a fresh inspection was required to be done through the Circle Officer as certain discrepancy was also pointed out in connection with the inspection report of the Circle Officer. In such circumstances, this Court finds that order dated 10.09.2002 was not in accordance with the order of remand and accordingly the same is fit to be set-aside. 12. So far as the subsequent order of the Commissioner passed in Mutation Revision No. 108 of 2002 which was filed against the order dated 10.09.2002 is concerned, this Court finds that the same is a cryptic order which does not deal with the contention of the petitioner at all and accordingly the said order passed by the Commissioner in Mutation Revision No. 108 of 2002 is also fit to be set-aside. 13. Accordingly, the order dated 05.05.2003 passed in Mutation Revision No. 108 of 2002 as well as order dated 10.09.2002, passed by the Additional Collector are hereby set-aside and the matter is remanded back to the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh for passing fresh order in order to resolve the various discrepancies which have been pointed out by the Commissioner in order dated 28.09.1999 passed in Revision Case No. 155 of 1994. The said authority in order to resolve the dispute is also directed to get a fresh inspection done through the Circle Officer in order to ascertain the exact property which are being claimed by the petitioner and the private respondent herein. The petitioner as well as the private respondent herein are directed the appear before the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh on 15.01.2019 and an appropriate order be passed by the said authority within a period of six months thereafter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties.