ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Anoop Kr. Mehta, assisted by Mr. Anil Rai, counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Bijay Kishore Prasad, assisted by Mrs. Bakshi Bibha, counsels appearing for the respondent no. 6. 3. Heard Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.C. to S.C. (L&C) appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 5. 4. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “(a) For quashing the order dated 15.10.2015 passed by the learned Additional Collector, Ramgarh (Respondent no. 2) in Land Restoration Appeal Case No. 15/2011-12 (Annexure-9); whereby the said respondent has been pleased to dismiss the said appeal only on the ground that the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh had already dismissed Appeal No. 8/1997 by an order dated 14.12.2004 (Annexure-4); AND (b) For quashing the order dated 21.01.2012 passed by the Respondent No. 3 in Land Restoration Case No. 1/1995 (Annexure-6); whereby and where under the said respondent has committed an error in amending Khata No. 94 by substituting Khata No. 77 after more than 14 years since the order of restoration dated 26.2.1997 (Annexure-3) was passed by the Respondent No. 4; (c) For quashing the order of the Respondent No. 2, the Additional Collector, Hazaribag dt. 14.12.2004 in Case No. RAN 8/97 by which the appeal preferred by the father of the petitioner has been dismissed. AND (d) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents not to give effect to the order dated 15.10.2015 passed by the Respondent No. 2 in Land Restoration Appeal Case No. 15/2011-12 (Annexure-9).” 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits as follows: (i) An application for restoration of land was filed by respondent no. 6 in connection with the property described in the application itself as Khata No. 94, Plot No. 188 Mouza- Murramkala, P.S. Ramgarh in the then District of Hazaribagh, area about 22 decimals against Dr. K.P. Sinha. In the said application the mode of dispossession has been described as registered sale deed. The application for restoration does not have the details of registered sale deed including the date. The application for restoration of land has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. (ii) Pursuant to this application, the notices were issued to Dr. K.P. Sinha and in response to that Dr. The application for restoration does not have the details of registered sale deed including the date. The application for restoration of land has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. (ii) Pursuant to this application, the notices were issued to Dr. K.P. Sinha and in response to that Dr. K.P. Sinha filed his show-cause and raised the point that the applicant is not a member of Schedule Tribe as in the records of rights the applicant has been described to be belonging to the caste namely Lohar, and accordingly the applicant belongs to backward class. (iii) Further objection was raised in connection with mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party and specific submission was made at para 16 of the show-cause reply that wife of Dr. K.P. Sinha had purchased the land being Khata No. 77 in plot No. 188 measuring an area 22 decimals out of 1.15 acres in Mouza Murramkala, P.S.-Ramgarh, District-Hazaribagh which was recorded in the name of Haricharan Mistry and Sib Charan Mistri sons of recorded tenant Hardayal Karmali by making payment of cash consideration amounting to Rs. 6,500/- by a registered sale deed dated 20.04.1982 . (iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the property which was purchased in the name of wife of Dr. K.P. Sinha namely Usha Sinha is different from the description of the property which was mentioned in application for restoration of land. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has no relation and occasion to get any right over the property which has been mentioned and described in application for restoration. The point of limitation was also raised in the show-cause reply. Pursuant to the aforesaid show-cause reply, final order dated 26.2.1997 was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh wherein points raised by Dr. K.P. Sinha were not considered particularly the point of caste of the applicant and the said authority disbelieved the entry in the record of right although there was no corresponding evidence much less documentary evidence or otherwise to show that the applicant belongs to Schedule Tribe category. (v) Against the order passed by the respondent no. 3, Dr. K.P. Sinha, father of the petitioner, filed his appeal before the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh being Appeal Case No. RAN-8/1997 and the order sheet of the said case is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. (v) Against the order passed by the respondent no. 3, Dr. K.P. Sinha, father of the petitioner, filed his appeal before the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh being Appeal Case No. RAN-8/1997 and the order sheet of the said case is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Counsel points out that a specific order dated 22.08.2002 was passed whereby the order was reserved for judgment and the matter was directed to be posted on 18.09.2002 for passing of the order. However, there is no order dated 18.09.2002 and the next order is dated 14.12.2004 whereby the appeal has been dismissed by a cryptic order by simply stating that the authority has considered the case on the point law and there is nothing before the appellate authority to differ from the findings given by the sub- Divisional Officer, Ramgarh. (vi) Counsel submits that not only there was an inordinate delay in passing the final order which was delayed by about 2 years and 3 months but the order dated 14.12.2004 itself is a cryptic, non-speaking order. (vii) Counsel thereafter submits that after passing the order dated 14.12.2004 an application dated 28.3.2011 was filed by applicant namely Kamalnath Karmali before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh mentioning therein that the description of the property in the application for restoration was incorrect and a further submission was made that in the proceeding for restoration of land, an application for rectification in the description of property was filed on 15.11.1995 but the same was never pressed by his counsel and accordingly, he prayed for modification of the final order dated 26.2.1997 so that the possession of Khata No. 77 instead of Khata No. 94 be given to the applicant. This application dated 28.03.2011 is contained in the Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Pursuant to this application, order dated 21.01.2012 was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh, whereby the said authority held that the Khata No. 94 is to be read as Khata No. 77 and the possession has to be given accordingly. This order is at Annexure-6 to the writ petition. (viii) Against this, Dr. K.P. Sinha filed an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 15.10.15 in land restoration Appeal Case No. 15/2011-12, wherein the Additional Collector, Ramgarh refused to pass any order by saying that the Appeal Case No. 8/97 has already been decided against Dr. K.P. Sinha vide order dated 14.12.2004. (viii) Against this, Dr. K.P. Sinha filed an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 15.10.15 in land restoration Appeal Case No. 15/2011-12, wherein the Additional Collector, Ramgarh refused to pass any order by saying that the Appeal Case No. 8/97 has already been decided against Dr. K.P. Sinha vide order dated 14.12.2004. Counsel for the petitioner, further, submits that thereafter Dr. K.P. Sinha expired and accordingly the writ petition has been filed by his son. (ix) Counsel further submits that an application for restoration was filed in connection with Khata No. 94 and after the disposal of the case, no application could have been filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh for modification of the Khata Number. At the time of executing the order of restoration dated 26.2.1997 the entire proceeding before Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh was over and no order could have been passed pursuant to application dated 28.3.11 filed by the respondent no. 6 herein for modification of the Plot number and accordingly, the impugned order dated 20.11.2012 is wholly without jurisdiction as there is no power of review conferred under the provisions of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act,1908 and otherwise also, the description of property for which the application for restoration was filed cannot be changed as the entire proceeding in connection with restoration has commenced and culminated vis-a-vis description of the property which was given in the application for restoration of land. He submits that after passing of final order, the description of property cannot be permitted to change. He further submits that the application for modification itself was filed after expiry of more than 14 years from the date of passing of the original order dated 26.02.1997. (x) He further submits that otherwise also the property in connection with the Khata No. 77 was purchased by wife of Dr. K.P. Sinha and she was never made a party. It is pointed out that no show-cause notice was issued to wife of Dr. K.P. Sinha as she was never a party to the proceedings. (xi) Petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported in 2010 (3) JLJR 244 . He has also relied upon the judgment reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 para 47 to submit that order passed by Judicial and quasi-judicial authority must be a reasoned order as they are subject to judicial review. (xi) Petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported in 2010 (3) JLJR 244 . He has also relied upon the judgment reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496 para 47 to submit that order passed by Judicial and quasi-judicial authority must be a reasoned order as they are subject to judicial review. He submits that the order which has been passed by the Appellate Authority dated 14.12.2004 is a cryptic order which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 6. Counsel for the respondent no. 6, on the other hand, submits that the application dated 28.03.2011 was rightly filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh as the description of land in the original application was incorrect and an application dated 15.11.1995 was filed for the rectification of the application which was never pressed by the concerned advocate in the proceeding for restoration of land and accordingly, the said application dated 15.11.1995 was sought to be addressed before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh vide application dated 28.03.2011. However, the application dated 15.11.1995 said to have been field before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh in the proceeding for restoration of land, has not been provided on the record by the respondent no. 6 herein. He submits that as the description of the land was incorrect, therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh entertained the application dated 28.3.2011 and rectified the description of land in the mutation process while executing the order dated 26.2.1997 for handing over physical possession of the land. However, the counsel for the respondent no. 6 could not show any provision of law under which such an application for rectification of the description of the property could be filed after the disposal of the application of restoration of land itself. He also could not show any provision of law by which Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh could have exercised his power of review or could have rectified the description of land after the disposal of the case itself. He has further referred to the caste certificate issued to him by the competent authority in the year 2012 wherein he has been described as a Schedule Tribe. However, he has not given answer to the point as to why the wife of Dr. K.P. Sinha namely Uma Sinha was never made a party in the restoration proceeding inspite of the fact that it is clearly mentioned in the show cause reply filed by Dr. However, he has not given answer to the point as to why the wife of Dr. K.P. Sinha namely Uma Sinha was never made a party in the restoration proceeding inspite of the fact that it is clearly mentioned in the show cause reply filed by Dr. K.P. Sinha that the property in khata no 77 was purchased by his wife ,Uma Sinha by registered sale deed in the year 1982. 7. Counsel for the respondent State also could not show any provision of law under which the application dated 28.3.2011 was filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh for rectification of the description of land after disposal of the case and also could not show any provision of law under which the impugned order dated 21.1.2012 was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh by changing the description of property to Khata No. 77 instead of Khata No. 94. The counsel for the respondent- State also could not show any provision under which the physical possession of the property belonging to Uma Sinha could have been directed to be handed over to the respondent no 6 although she was never a party in the restoration proceedings or in the proceedings arising out of application for rectification dated 28.3.2011. 8. After hearing the counsel appearing for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition due to the following facts and circumstances: (a) An application for restoration of land was filed by the respondent no. 6 on 19.1.1995 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh, giving the description of property as Khata No. 94 Plot No. 188 Mouza-Murramkala, Ramgarh against Dr. K.P. Sinha. Pursuant to this, a show- cause reply was filed by Dr. K.P. Sinha wherein, inter alia, it was mentioned that property of Khata No. 77 belongs to wife of Dr. K.P. Sinha and plea of non-joinder of the party was also raised. (b) The respondent no. 6 had filed an application for modification of the description of land as back as on 15.11.1995. The said application for modification was admittedly never pressed and accordingly, was never allowed and the proceeding continued in connection with Khata No. 94 and final order was passed. However, no application was filed for making Usha Sinha, wife of Dr. K. P. Sinha as a party in the proceedings. The said application for modification was admittedly never pressed and accordingly, was never allowed and the proceeding continued in connection with Khata No. 94 and final order was passed. However, no application was filed for making Usha Sinha, wife of Dr. K. P. Sinha as a party in the proceedings. (c) The petitioner has already stated that he has nothing to do with Khata No. 94 in connection with which the order dated 26.2.1997 was passed by the Sub-Divisonal Officer, Ramgarh although various contentions raised by the father of the petitioner in show-cause reply as contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition were not considered including the point of misjoinder of necessary party and the point regarding caste of the respondent no. 6 has been disbelieved and it has been held that the respondent no. 6 belongs to the caste of Schedule Tribe. Against this, an appeal was filed in which order was reserved on 18.01.2002 and final order passed on 14.12.2004. From the perusal of the final appellate order dated 14.12.2004, it appears that the same is a cryptic and non-speaking order. However, as the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with Khata No. 94 which was the subject matter of the application for restoration of land filed by the respondent no. 6, and he is concerned only with Khata No. 77 which was purchased by his mother, this Court is not inclined to remit the matter to the appellate authority for fresh consideration inspite of finding that the appellate order dated 14.12.2004 is a cryptic and non-speaking order. (d) So far as the subsequent application, for rectification in the description of property filed by the respondent no. 6 herein dated 28.3.2011 is concerned, none of the respondents have been able to show any provision of law under which this application has been filed and any provision of law under which the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh has rectified the description of the land after the disposal of the case. Accordingly, this Court finds that filing of the application dated 28.3.2011 by respondent no. 6 for rectification of the description of the property after disposal of the case, is itself mis-conceived and not maintainable. Accordingly, this Court finds that filing of the application dated 28.3.2011 by respondent no. 6 for rectification of the description of the property after disposal of the case, is itself mis-conceived and not maintainable. Accordingly, the order passed on 21.01.2012 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh rectifying the description of land from Khata No. 94 to Khata No. 77 and straight away directing for the physical possession of land in Khata No.77 is wholly without jurisdiction. Otherwise also, the change of Khata Number from Khata No. 94 to Khata No. 77 was also not justified as the same stood in the name of Usha Sinha, wife of Dr. K. P. Sinha, who was never made a party respondent in proceedings for restoration of land and no order could have been passed rectifying the description of property which affects the property standing in the name of Usha Sinha, wife of Dr. K. P. Sinha. Accordingly, the order dated 21.01.2012 is set aside. In view of this, the appellate order dated 15.10.2015 passed in Appeal Case No. 15/2011-12 is of no consequence as the same was not entertained by the appellate authority on the ground that the appeal against the order of restoration was dismissed vide order dated 14.12.2004 passed in Appeal Case No. 8 of 1997. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed.