ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order of the State Government approving the recommendation of cancellation of Jamabandi in relation to Plot nos. 996 and 997 (total area of 10.57 acres) under Khata no. 312, Mouza No. 239, Mouza- Katras, District- Dhanbad (as communicated through letter no. 3224/Ra. dated 27.05.2016 (Annexure-7/1 to the writ petition) by the Joint Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department (respondent no.-3) to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad (respondent no.-5). Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 21.09.2013 passed by the respondent no. 5 in Misc. Record No. 14 of 2011-12/Jamabandi Cancellation Record No. 14 of 2011-12 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) by which the respondent no. 5 has recommended for cancellation of Jamabandi of the said land. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said land comprises a pond and its embankment. Earlier, a proceeding was initiated in relation to the said land, which was registered as Misc. Sairat No. 05 of 1961-62, as would be evident from Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The Sairat Register annexed as Annexure-1/1 to the writ petition would also show that the said land was declared as homestead of the ex-intermediary. Form-M issued under Section 5, 6 and 7 of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (in short “the Act, 1950”) (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) would also suggest that a fair rent was fixed in the name of late Purnendu Narayan Singh son of late Raja Shakti Narayan Singh (grandfather of the petitioners). However, Jamanbadi Cancellation Record No. 14 of 2011-12 was initiated by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad (respondent no. 8) on the recommendation of the Circle Officer, Baghmara (respondent no. 9). Subsequently, the records were transferred to the Additional Collector, Dhanbad (respondent no. 6), who vide his note dated 14.08.2013, explaining the nature and background of the said land, recommended to release the land from the Sairat Register. However, without considering the recommendation of the respondent no. 6, the respondent no. 5 vide order dated 21.09.2013 in Misc. Record No. 14 of 2011-12 directed for cancellation of Jamabandi of the said land. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred revision being Mutation Revision Case no. 83 of 2013, before the Commissioner, North Chota Nagpur Division, Hazaribagh (respondent no. 4), which was kept pending for one reason or other. 6, the respondent no. 5 vide order dated 21.09.2013 in Misc. Record No. 14 of 2011-12 directed for cancellation of Jamabandi of the said land. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred revision being Mutation Revision Case no. 83 of 2013, before the Commissioner, North Chota Nagpur Division, Hazaribagh (respondent no. 4), which was kept pending for one reason or other. In the meantime, a letter as contained in memo no. 3224/Ra. dated 27.05.2016 was issued under the signature of respondent no.3 to the respondent no. 5 whereby a communication was made that the State Government has approved/confirmed the cancellation of Jamabandi of the said land under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950. It is further submitted that the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 was never initiated with respect to the said land as would be evident from the aforesaid factual background of the case. Otherwise also, the land in question is a homestead land and thus the proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 could not have been initiated as there has been no transfer of the land within the mining of Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950. However, the petitioners have come to know that a team of the officers of Dhanbad Municipal Corporation (respondent no. 10) has made an inspection of the pond in the month of January, 2018 for its beautification treating it to be a government pond. 3. It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 10 and learned A.C. to G.A-III that since the Mutation Revision Case no. 83 of 2013 preferred by the petitioner before the respondent no.4 is still pending, a direction may be issued to the said authority to dispose of the said revision petition within a time frame. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and looking into the contents of the writ petition, it appears that being aggrieved by the order of the respondent no.5 dated 21.09.2013 passed in Misc. Record No. 14 of 2011-12, the petitioner preferred Mutation Revision No. 83 of 2013 before the respondent no. 4. However, the same appears to be still lying undecided in the court of the revisional authority. In the meantime, a letter contained in memo no. 3224/Ra. dated 27.05.2016 was issued by the respondent no. 3 to the respondent no. Record No. 14 of 2011-12, the petitioner preferred Mutation Revision No. 83 of 2013 before the respondent no. 4. However, the same appears to be still lying undecided in the court of the revisional authority. In the meantime, a letter contained in memo no. 3224/Ra. dated 27.05.2016 was issued by the respondent no. 3 to the respondent no. 5 informing inter alia that the State Government has approved/confirmed the recommendation made by respondent no. 5 in Misc. Record No. 14 of 2011-12 for cancellation of Jamabandi of the land in question. Thereafter, news was published in the local newspaper on 10.01.2018 that officers of Dhanbad Municipal Corporation have made an inspection for beautification of the pond situated over the land in question treating the same to be a government pond. The petitioners, thereafter, preferred the stay application before the respondent no. 4 in Mutation Revision No. 83 of 2013. The said stay application also appears to be pending before the respondent no. 4. 5. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the respondent no. 4 is directed to take up the Mutation Revision No. 83 of 2013 as well as stay application preferred by the petitioner and dispose of the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that since the order dated 21.09.2013 passed in Misc. Record No. 14 of 2011-12 by the respondent no. 5 is under challenge before the respondent no. 4, the said authority while adjudicating the issue, shall not be prejudiced by the letter contained in memo no. 3224/Ra. dated 27.05.2016 issued by the respondent no. 3 (Annexure-7/1 to the writ petition). Till the respondent no. 4 disposes of either the stay application of the petitioners or the revision petition itself, whichever is earlier, the parties shall maintain status quo over the land in question. 6. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. Petition disposed of.