JUDGMENT : Counsel for the petitioners is absent. 2. Counsel for the private respondents is absent. 3. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, JC to SC(L&C) appears on behalf of the respondent nos.1 and 5. 4. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- a. “for quashing the order dated 12.01.2006 (Annexure-9) passed by the Court of Additional Collector, Koderma, in Misc. Case No.14/2002-03 allowing an application filed on behalf of private respondents and cancelling the jamabandi running in the name of Late Lalo Singh and Khublal Singh in Register-II, in relation to the raiyati lands of plot no.2808/66-35 of Khata no.220/685 of Khata no.220/767 area 3.08 acres of village Gumo, Police Station Jai Nagar. b. For a direction restraining the respondents from acting pursuant to and in furtherance of the writ order and/or direction for staying the operation of impugned order dated 12.01.2006 (Annexure-9) by the Additional Collector, Koderma, in Misc. Case No. 14/2002-03.” 5. It is submitted by the counsel for the State that the specific case of the petitioners as is apparent from para-21 and para-22 of the writ petition is as follows: “21. That it is submitted that the opposite party who have already filed a title suit being T.S. No.40/90 in the Court of Munsif, on 14.11.1990, wherein they have impleaded the petitioners as defendant no.1 and 2 and shown the father of the petitioners Lalo Singh as deceased in the year 1990 having acted malafide in filing application in the Court of Circle Officer, Koderma, as on 09.10.2000 in the name of Lalo Singh, only for cancellation of jamabandi and has obtained the order against a dead person, the said impugned order dated 12.01.2006 is therefore, void, ab-initio and has no operative value. 22. That it is submitted that the impugned order dated 19.01.2006 passed by the Additional Collector, is in violation of principles of natural justice, when it was passed against a dead person (deceased Lalo Singh) without issuing any notice to the petitioners and giving opportunity to the petitioners to appear and contest the case of cancellation of jamabandi running in the name of their father Lalo Singh.” 6. The private respondents have filed their counter-affidavit in the matter in which para-21 and 22 of the writ petition have not been denied. 7. The private respondents have filed their counter-affidavit in the matter in which para-21 and 22 of the writ petition have not been denied. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 12.01.2006 passed in Misc. case no 14 of 2002-03 (Annexure-9) passed by the Additional Collector, Koderma, was passed against a dead person and accordingly, the same cannot be sustained and is set-aside. 8. However, considering the fact and circumstances of this case and considering the fact that there is dispute in connection with the mutation in favour of Late Lalo Singh, it will be open to the respondents, if so advised, to initiate fresh proceedings before the competent authority against the legal heirs and representatives of Late Lalo Singh. However, it is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case and has set-aside the impugned order only on account of the fact that the said order has been passed against a dead person. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid liberty to the private respondents.