ORDER : 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 27.07.2018/06.08.2018 (Annexure-7) passed by respondent no.5 in Miscellaneous Case No. 13 of 2018-19 by correcting the name of respondent no.6 in place of Satya Narayan Modi in respect of a piece of land measuring an area of 13.20 acres appertaining to Plot Nos. 376 and 441 under Khata No. 44 of Mouza-Hethu. 2. The brief facts of this case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition are that the land appertaining to Plot Nos. 376, 378, 379, 380, 441, 585, 502 and 516 under Khata No. 44 of Mouza-Hethu was recorded in the name of Sk. Barkat Ali son of Sk. Rahmat Ali, in the revisional survey records of right published in the year 1935. Upon the death of Sk. Barkat Ali, the aforesaid land was inherited by Most. Basiran, Most. Koki, Wahidan, Most. Abda, Sk. Bahauddin and Sk. Sibli. The petitioners being the legal heirs and descendants of Sk. Barkat Ali, were recorded as raiyat and they are in possession over the land in question. The District Land Acquisition Officer, being the Collector under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 issued notice dated 26.07.2011 under Section 12(2) of the said Act in L.A. Case No. 06 of 2008-09 showing the name of raiyat as Barkat Ali, son of Rahmat for acquisition of a piece of land measuring an area of 11 decimals being portion of R.S. Plot No. 441 under Khata No. 44 and an Award was prepared for compensation of Rs.9,34,275/-. Further, the District Land Acquisition Officer, Ranchi in L.A. Case No. 06 of 2008-09 has issued notice amongst others to the petitioners asking them to produce documentary evidence before him on 05.06.2013. In pursuance thereto, documents have been produced, basis upon which proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure amongst others has been referred by the Circle Officer, Namkum to the Officer-in-charge Jagarnathpur Police Station, who has submitted a report as would appear that the land appertaining to Plot Nos. 376 and 441 under Khata No. 44 measuring an area of 10.50 acres and 4.02 acres was recorded in the name of Sk. Barkat Ali in the record of right and at present, in Register no. 376 and 441 under Khata No. 44 measuring an area of 10.50 acres and 4.02 acres was recorded in the name of Sk. Barkat Ali in the record of right and at present, in Register no. II at page 252 in Volume-I, the said land was entered in the name of one Satya Narayan Modi. Before doing that, no notice has been issued to the petitioners, therefore, present writ petition has been filed. 3. This Court has heard the mater on 27.08.2019 and passed following order, which reads hereunder as: “It is a case where order dated 27.07.2018/06.08.2018 passed by the Circle Officer, Namkum is under challenge, by which, the order of the entry of the name of the petitioners made in the rent register by creating mutation in his favour has been cancelled. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset has submitted that the petitioners have filed the writ petition knowing fully well the forum of appeal/revision, since impugned order has been passed without issuing any notice to the petitioners, in whose favour subsequent right have been created by passing the order of mutation by the competent mutating authority under the provisions of the Bihar Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 (in short 'the Act, 1973'). Mr. Nitish Krishna, A.C to learned S.C. (L&C) II has submitted that instruction is required to be taken. This Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order, prima facie, observed that the impugned order has been passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner. The question is when the statute confers power upon the Circle Officer/Anchal Adhikari under Section 14 of the Act, 1973, he is supposed and duty bound to act in consonance with the said provision meaning thereby if any objection against person of creating mutation has been passed and if it has been objected the requirement of issuance of notice upon the said person in whose favour an order of mutation has been passed is required to be followed, by not doing so, it is nothing but a burden upon the High Court since the petitioners are having the plea of directly approaching this Court by ignoring the forum of availability of alternative remedy of appeal/revision. In view thereof, this Court is constrained to call upon the Circle Officer, Namkum along with original record of Misc. In view thereof, this Court is constrained to call upon the Circle Officer, Namkum along with original record of Misc. Case No. 13 of 2018-19 on the next date of hearing for its perusal and passing appropriate order. List this case on 02.09.2019. Learned counsel for the respondents is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Circle Officer.” 4. Mrs. Shubhra Rani, the Circle Officer, Namkum had appeared in person on 03.09.2019, in pursuance of the order passed by this Court dated 27.08.2019 and placed the record and submitted by the said Circle Officer that the impugned order has been passed by the then Circle Officer, namely, Mr. Manoj Kumar, who is now posted as Circle Officer at Bermo, therefore, this Court has passed order on 03.09.2019, which reads hereunder as: “Reference may be made to the order dated 27th August, 2019, in pursuance thereto, Mrs. Shubhra Rani at present working as Circle Officer, Namkum is present in the Court along with the original record. Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned SC (L&C)-appearing for the State of Jharkhand has submi ed by going across the records and as instructed by the present Circle Office who is present in the Court that the jamabandi has been created in the name of the ancestors of the petitioner and their names are running in the Register with reference of “00” plot and when the respondent No.6 has made an application for inserting a particular reference of plot number, the same has been entered in the Register. He also submits that even before making any entry either of the plot or of a person, a required notice ought to have been issued by the concerned Circle Officer, Namkum in exercise of power conferred under the provision of Bihar Tenant’s Holding(Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed by the then Circle Officer, namely, Mr. Manoj Kumar who is now posted at Bermo as Circle Officer. This Court after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned State counsel is prima facie of the view that even for making reference of the plot number for replacing from “00” to that of “376 and 441” comprising of an area of 10.50 acre, 3.00 acre, a notice was required to be issued upon the person in whose name the jamabandi was running. This Court has also taken into consideration the fact that the Circle Officer, Namkum who has passed the order on 06.08.2018 is now posted on transfer as Circle Officer at Bermo, therefore, his appearance is also required. In view thereof, the Circle Officer, Bermo is directed to appear in person and explain the reason as to under what authority and under which law the plot “00” has been changed from “376 and 441” without issuing any notice to the person in whose name jamabandi is running. Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned SC (L&C)- undertakes to communicate this order to the authority. List this case on 17.09.2019. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr.Krishna Shankar, learned SC (L&C)- for its onward communication. The Circle Officer, Namkum, Ranchi will also remain present on that day along with the records.” The Circle Officer, Namkum, namely, Mrs. Shubhra Rani and the Circle Officer, Bermo, namely, Mr. Manoj Kumar are present in the Court along with original records. 5. This Court has entertained the writ petition at that stage since the submission has been advanced that while passing impugned order, no notice has been issued and as such there is violation of principles of natural justice and if that eventuality would be there, the writ petition will be maintainable before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned S.C. (L&C)-II appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand by taking aid of the two officials, who are present in the Court and also by going through the relevant records, has submitted that the ancestors of the petitioners were the vendors of the property who sold the property in favour of the ancestors of respondent no.6 namely Satya Narayan Modi in whose favour an instrument has been created by way of registered sale deed being deed no. 7218 dated 03.12.1951, wherein, reference of the property has been mentioned as situated at Mouza-Hethu. The ancestors of the petitioners although have filed an appropriate application for cancellation of the deed and the cancellation deed has been issued being deed no. 7229 dated 30.12.1951, but as would appear from the order dated 06.08.2018, wherein, reference of land having been situated at Mouza-Hehal. 7. The ancestor of respondent no.6 namely Satya Narayan Modi has made an application for making correction in Register II on the basis of sale deed no. 7229 dated 30.12.1951, but as would appear from the order dated 06.08.2018, wherein, reference of land having been situated at Mouza-Hehal. 7. The ancestor of respondent no.6 namely Satya Narayan Modi has made an application for making correction in Register II on the basis of sale deed no. 7218 dated 03.12.1951 and the mutating authority after considering the instrument dated 03.12.1951 has made necessary correction by discarding the cancellation deed no. 7229 dated 30.12.1951 since the reference of the aforesaid deed is of Mouza-Hehal and, hence, no notice has been issued to the petitioners taking into consideration the fact about admitted position of creation of sale deed dated 03.12.1951. Upon such ground, it has been submitted that it is not a case where the writ petition will be entertained on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and if the petitioners are at all aggrieved with the impugned order, they may have an opportunity to approach before alternative forum. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through relevant records as have been placed by the officers, who are present in the Court as also having gone through the order dated 06.08.2018, this Court find force in the submissions made on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand to the effect that the land in question was recorded in the record of right in the name of ancestors of the petitioners, who have transferred the land in favour of the ancestors of one Satya Narayan Modi by virtue of registered sale deed no. 7218 dated 03.12.1951, basis upon which, an application was filed before the mutating authority for making necessary correction in the registered sale deed and Register II and in pursuance thereto, order was passed on 06.08.2018. The petitioners' main contention is that their ancestors have filed an application for cancellation being deed no. 7229 dated 30.12.1951 pertaining to the same land as would appear from the impugned order that the said land is situated at Mouza-“Hethu” and as such notice has not been issued to the petitioners taking the deed no. 7218 dated 03.12.1951 as conclusive. 8. This Court, therefore, is of the view that since the petitioners have themselves at fault by making reference of cancellation deed no. 7229 dated 30.12.1951, wherein, reference of Mouza is quite different. 7218 dated 03.12.1951 as conclusive. 8. This Court, therefore, is of the view that since the petitioners have themselves at fault by making reference of cancellation deed no. 7229 dated 30.12.1951, wherein, reference of Mouza is quite different. It is the subject matter of the deed dated 03.12.1951 which is Mouza-“Hethu” while reference of Mouza in deed no. 7229 dated 30.12.1951 is “Hehal” and as such, no notice has been issued and, hence, it is not a case of entertaining the writ petition on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 9. In course of argument, Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners has not disputed the fact about reference of Mouza in deed no. 7229 dated 30.12.1951 as Hehal. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it will be open for the petitioners to approach before the appropriate authority. 10. The presence of the officers namely Mrs. Shubhra Rani, Circle Officer, Namkum and Mr. Manoj Kumar, Circle Officer, Bermo are dispensed with.