JUDGMENT : This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 20th December, 2014, passed by the Circle Officer, Govindpur in Misc. Case No. 5/2014-15 by which the Jamabandi (mutation) opened and running in favour of the petitioners has been cancelled without any opportunity of hearing given to them with a further direction upon the concerned respondents to restore Jamabandi (mutation) in favour of the petitioners. 2. The factual background of this case is that the land in question was in possession of one Ozi Mian and others and accordingly, was recorded in the Cadestral Survey Record of Rights. The successor in interest of the recorded tenants by different sale deeds executed on different dates in the year 1961, sold and transferred the aforesaid lands to Smt. Shakuntala Devi Almal (since deceased) wife of Late Gauri Shankar Almal. The successor in interest of the recorded tenant of Khata No. 7 of Mouza Sushnilewa, Mouza No. 88 sold and transferred 63 decimals of land by a registered sale deed in favour of the said Shakuntala Devi Almal, wife of Late Gauri Shankar Almal in the year 1963 and after purchasing, got her name recorded in the Circle Office under Thoka No. 380 and started paying rent to the State Government in token whereof rent receipts were issued, whereafter Shakuntala Devi Almal left for Kolkata and in order to manage the landed property, she has executed a registered general power of attorney being Deed No. 40 of 2001, registered at Kolkata in favour of Sri Basudeo Prasad Saw and Sri Kalyan Sarkar empowering them, inter alia, to sale and transfer the aforementioned land and execute registered sale deed on her behalf. The said power of attorney holder vide Registered sale deed No. 4118, dated 27.08.2011 sold and transferred 2.47 decimals from Plot No. 279 and 280 of Khata No. 2 within new Plot Nos. 2 and 6 in favour of one Champa Devi and she came in possession of the property, purchased by her. The said power of attorney holder vide Registered sale deed No. 4118, dated 27.08.2011 sold and transferred 2.47 decimals from Plot No. 279 and 280 of Khata No. 2 within new Plot Nos. 2 and 6 in favour of one Champa Devi and she came in possession of the property, purchased by her. Similarly the power of attorney holders, named above, vide Registered Sale Deed No. 4405, dated 31.08.2001 sold and transferred certain land in favour of one Smt. Champa Devi and the said Champa Devi vide Registered Sale Deed dated 22.02.2008, sold part of the land in favour of Shri Ajit Kumar Gupta and Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, who vide Registered Sale Deed dated 26.11.2008 had sold out the property in favour of the petitioners and in consequence thereof, they have come in possession of the land and also started making payment of rent after making necessary correction in the Register II, but, all of a sudden, a proceeding has been initiated for cancellation of mutation on the basis of an application made by one Mani Shankar Almal, taking the plea that his ancestors/predecessors had not sold the land under the aforesaid Khatas and in pursuance thereto, the Circle Officer has passed an order cancelling the mutation by passing an order to restore it, against which the present writ petition has been filed, mainly on the ground that before passing such order, the Circle Officer, Govindpur has not provided an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 3. The matter has been heard on several occasions by this Court and the State has been directed to file counter affidavit in terms thereof, the counter affidavit has been filed, the plea of availability of alternative remedy alongwith the denial of the factual aspects have been agitated. 3. The matter has been heard on several occasions by this Court and the State has been directed to file counter affidavit in terms thereof, the counter affidavit has been filed, the plea of availability of alternative remedy alongwith the denial of the factual aspects have been agitated. The State has taken the specific stand that the order has been passed by the Circle Officer after providing adequate opportunity and looking to the decree passed in Title Suit No. 92 of 2006, wherein, the venders of the petitioners have been held to be having no right, title and interest over the suit property and therefore, the Circle Officer has come to the finding by holding therein, that when the competent court of civil jurisdiction has come out with a declaration, holding therein, having no right, title and interest of the venders in their favour, therefore, the transfer of property on their behalf on the basis of the power of attorney cannot be said to be proper and therefore, mutation, which has been created in the name of the petitioners by making necessary correction in the Rent Register i.e. Register II, has been said to have obtained on suppression of material facts. This Court, therefore, in order to examine the issue on merits by entertaining the writ petition, even on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal and revision, has thought it proper to scrutinize the impugned order as also to corroborate it, has called upon the original record, which has been produced by Mr. Jayant FranklinTopppo, learned S.C. (L&C) appearing for the Respondent-State of Jharkhand. It transpires from the order passed in Misc. Case No.05/2014-15 (Annexure-7), wherein, the name of the petitioners finds mention at Serial No. 34 thereof. It further transpires that the holders of the mutation have been communicated to appear alongwith the documents in their defence. The documents have been presented by the Opposite Parties, which has been perused by the Circle Officer and thereafter the order has been passed on 20th December, 2014, cancelling the mutation, although, the petitioners have taken the ground of not providing the opportunity of hearing, since show cause notice, said to be issued, has not been served. This Court on examination of the content of the paragraph 7, has found that altogether reference of 38 individuals have been made alongwith the petitioners, namely, Amit Kumar Burnwal, petitioner no. This Court on examination of the content of the paragraph 7, has found that altogether reference of 38 individuals have been made alongwith the petitioners, namely, Amit Kumar Burnwal, petitioner no. 1 and Anuj Kumar Burnwal, petitioner no. 2. It further appears that all the 38 individuals have been ordered to be indicated about the said proceeding, as would appear from the order dated 15.04.2014, passed in Misc. Case No. 05/14-15 and further from the order dated 17.05.2014, passed therein. The appearance was made by Sheila Devi, Saroj Devi and others opposite parties in pursuance to the notice and the reminders and they have also produced the documents alongwith the judgment, passed by the competent court of civil jurisdiction and the power of attorney holder being Deed No. 40 of 2001, basis upon which the Registered Deed has been created. The Circle Officer after making reference of the appearance of the individuals as per the reference made in the Notice dated 28.03.2014, passed in the said Misc. Case has passed an order of restoration by which the mutation has been created in favour of the petitioners. It further appears from the statement made at paragraph 11, wherein, specific stand has been taken by the Respondents that the interested persons including the petitioners had duly been provided to defend their case prior to passing of the order, dated 20th December, 2014. It is further evident that the copy of the counter affidavit has been served upon the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, having been received on 24.07.2017, but no reply in rebuttal has been filed, denying and disputing the statement made at paragraph 11 to the statement, therefore, this Court is of the view that the assertion and the ground made by the petitioners that the Circle Officer has passed the impugned order without providing any opportunity of hearing, is not correct. So far as entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by the High Court, there is no bar in entertaining the writ petition, rather, it can be entertained, since it is a self-imposed restriction, but subject to the condition that if there is any violation of the principles of natural justice or the order is contrary to the Statutory provision or there is infringement of fundamental right, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has been well-decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Whirlpool Corporation-Vs.-Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Others reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 . Recently,the Hon’ble ApexCourtinthe judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 5654 of 2019 in the case of Maharashtra Chess Association-Vs.-Union of India & Others, wherein, it has been laid down that mere existence of alternate Forums, where the aggrieved parties may secure relief, does not create a legal bar on a High Court to exercise its jurisdiction, rather, it is a factor to be taken into consideration by the high Court amongst several factors. The decision, whether or not to entertain an action in its writ jurisdiction remains a decision to be taken by the High Court on examination of the facts and circumstances of a particular case. Mere existence of alternate Forums, where the aggrieved parties may secure relief, does not create a legal bar on the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction, rather it is a factor to be taken into consideration by the High Court amongst several factors. This Court in order to entertain the writ petition, even though the Forum of appeal as also Revision is available under the applicable Act i.e. The Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973, wherein, the original jurisdiction conferred upon the Circle Officer is under Section 14 while appeal and revision lies under Sections 15 and 16. The issue agitated in this writ petition is about the genuineness of the purchase of the landed property in question, the petitioners are claiming to have purchased the landed property in question through the rightful power of attorney holder, while the creation of the said power of attorney has been disputed by the successor in interest of the original land owner. The basis of the said power of attorney fell for its consideration in Title Suit no. The basis of the said power of attorney fell for its consideration in Title Suit no. 92/2006, wherein, also the finding has been recorded, now the question, which is to be decided is the genuineness of the power of attorney and the purchase made on the basis thereof, therefore, it is absolutely on fact, needs to be appreciated for its proper adjudication. The Circle Officer in exercise of original jurisdiction into recalling the order of mutation has relied upon the judgment passed in the Title Suit No. 92/2006 as also raised the question of genuineness of the power of attorney and the commission of forgery on the part of the individuals including the petitioners, whose names have been referred as under Annexure-7, as such, in order to adjudicate as to whether any fraud has been committed with respect to the creation of an instrument like the power of attorney in favour of the person, who has sold out the landed property in question in favour of the petitioners, the facts, which are required to be appreciated by the authority which cannot be adjudicated by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of such disputed question of facts about the genuineness of the power of attorney and the intent of the fraud having been agitated which been considered by the Circle Officer in passing the impugned order, therefore, this Court is of the view that the fact of this case is not of such nature, where the writ petition may be entertained for adjudicating the factual dispute, when the Forum of alternative appeal and the Revision is available under the applicable Act of the year, 1973. 4. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioners to agitate the issue before the appellate/original authority as per the provision of the Act of 1973. 5. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.