JUDGMENT : 1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint about any audio and visual connectivity. 2. This is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 03.07.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3581 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been allowed by quashing the decision of the authority as contained in Letter No.3540/Ra, dated 29.07.2015 whereby the proposal for cancellation of jamabandi has been confirmed in terms of Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reform Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1950). Further the order dated 02.12.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Misc. Case No.58/02-03/22/03-04, whereby jamabandi opened in the name of Lal Maheshwari Nath Shahdeo, has been cancelled. 3. The facts of the case which require to be enumerated read as hereunder: The land pertaining to Khata No.383 Plot Nos. 492, 496, 443 and 446, situated at village Pundag Thana No. 228 District Ranchi is recorded in R.S record of right as Gair Mazarua Malik in the name of Baralal Kandrap Nath Shahdeo under Khewat No.2 of the said village. According to the petitioners, the then landlord orally settled 80 acres of land of R.S Plot No. 492 and 8 acres out R.S Plot No. 496 of Khata No.383, village Pundag, Thana No.228, District Ranchi by way of Hukumnama dated 31.01.1943 to one Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo and put him in possession of the said land. The settlee also paid rent of the said land to the landlord. The then landlord also settled R.S Plot Nos.443 and 496 to Kedar Nath Chaturvedi and R.S Plot No.446 to Nasirun Nisha. The landlord created a Trust known as “Chintamani Trust” and transferred the said land including other properties to the Trust and accordingly the settlee started paying rent to the Trust. After vesting of the land, the return was filed by the said Trust wherein Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo has been shown as settlee of the said land. A proceeding u/s 4(h) of the Act, 1950 was initiated against the Trust with respect to the said land and after due enquiry, the proceeding was dropped vide order dated 03.08.1959 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi. A proceeding u/s 4(h) of the Act, 1950 was initiated against the Trust with respect to the said land and after due enquiry, the proceeding was dropped vide order dated 03.08.1959 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi. Thereafter, a demand was opened in the name of Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo by the order of Additional Collector, Ranchi vide letter no.3247 dated 07.12.1964 and he started paying rent to the State. After the death of Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo, his wife, namely, Draupadi Devi inherited the said land and came in physical possession of the same. Draupadi Devi sold 10 acres of the said land, which was marked as Sub Plot No.492/A of Khata No.383, to the mother of the petitioners-Lal Damodar Nath Shahdeo and Bara Lal Govind Nath Sahdeo, namely, Kanak Kumari Devi by virtue of registered deed dated 23.02.1983 and possession was also given to her. Draupadi Devi also sold 20 acres of said land, which was marked as Sub Plot No. 492/B of Khata No.383 to one Anapurna Devi by another sale deed dated 19.02.1983 and she also came in physical possession of the same. Both Kanak Kumari Devi and Anapurna Devi filed applications before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi for mutation of the names of the purchasers. The said applications were registered as Misc. Case No.1/1985-86 and Misc. Case No.2/1985-86. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ranchi vide order dated 01.07.1988 made a recommendation to the Additional Collector Ranchi for realization of rent from the applicants. In the meantime, a proceeding was initiated against Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo with respect of 88 acres of land pertaining to Plot No.492 and 496 of Khata No.383 situated at village Pundag Thana No.228, District Ranchi and by order dated 15.06.2006, the Jamabandi running in the name of Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo was cancelled behind the back of Kanak Kumari Devi and Anapurna Devi. Aggrieved by the said order, Kanak Kumari Devi and others filed an appeal being Revenue Appeal No.122 of 2006 which was also rejected. Thereafter, Kanak Kumari Devi alongwith Anapurna Devi filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No.4895 of 2007, which was allowed vide order dated 31.03.2008 and the order of cancellation of Jamabandi was set aside. Thereafter, the respondent-State of Jharkhand preferred a petition for modification of the order, being C.M.P. No.214 of 2008, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, Kanak Kumari Devi alongwith Anapurna Devi filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No.4895 of 2007, which was allowed vide order dated 31.03.2008 and the order of cancellation of Jamabandi was set aside. Thereafter, the respondent-State of Jharkhand preferred a petition for modification of the order, being C.M.P. No.214 of 2008, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. After death of Kanak Kumari Devi, the petitioner-Lal Damodar Nath Sahdeo approached the respondents for issuance of rent receipt but nothing was done, as such, a contempt case being Cont. (Civil) Case No.52 of 2013 was filed which was dismissed for default. A writ petition being W.P.(C) No.283 of 2011 was also filed by Anapurna Devi, which was allowed vide order dated 25.01.2011, against which a letters patent appeal being L.P.A No. 244 of 2012 was filed by the respondent-State and the same was dismissed vide order dated 08.10.2012. Thereafter, the rent receipt was being issued to said Anapurna Devi. The petitioner-Lal Damodar Nath Shahdeo filed W.P.(C) No.644 of 2016 for issuance of rent receipt in his favour wherein the respondent-State has filed counter affidavit stating that the Jamabandi of the settlee was cancelled on 02.02.2012 by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and the same was confirmed on 29.07.2015 u/s 4(h) of the Act, 1950. Thereafter, the petitioner-Lal Damodar Nath Shahdeo filed another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.3581 of 2017 and the petitioners-Anapurna Devi and Bara Lal Govind Nath Sahdeo have filed W.P.(C) No.2783 of 2017 challenging the order dated 02.02.2012 and other consequential relief. The point agitated before the learned Single Judge was that once the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 was dropped on 03.08.1959 after a full-fledged enquiry, no fresh proceeding or order under Section 4(h) of the said Act could have been initiated as the same is barred by the principle of res judicata. Further, the petitioner is claiming the right upon the said land by virtue of the settlement made in the year 1943, i.e., much prior to 01.01.1946, but the alleged enquiry or the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 is completely illegal and not in consonance with the provision of Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 due to lack of inherent jurisdiction. The State had appeared and filed detailed counter affidavit inter alia stating therein that the then Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi vide order dated 02.12.2012 passed in Misc. The State had appeared and filed detailed counter affidavit inter alia stating therein that the then Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi vide order dated 02.12.2012 passed in Misc. Case No.58/02-03/22/03-04 cancelled the jamabandi of land in question and the said order has been confirmed by the State Government vide Letter No.3540/Ra, dated 29.07.2015 issued by the Additional Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand with respect to the said land. Further, it has been submitted that as per the Register-II of Village Pundag since the demand with respect to the land in question under Khata No.383 Plot No.492 has not been opened in the name of the writ petitioner-Lal Damodar Nath Shahdeo, the question of issuance of rent receipt does not arise. The proposal under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 was send by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi on the strength of the order passed by him in Misc. Case No.58/02-03/22/03-04 and the said proposal has been confirmed by the State Government and has been communicated vide Letter No.3540/Ra, dated 29.07.2015. The writ Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties had quashed and impugned orders with a direction upon the respondents to issue rent receipt in favour of the petitioners treating the jamabandi standing in their names as legal and valid. So far as the claim of right, title and interest upon the said land are concerned, the respondents were at liberty to move before the competent civil court, if so advised, which is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal. 4. Mr. Deepak Kumar Dubey, learned AC to AAG-II appearing for the appellant-State has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the factual aspect vis-à-vis the legal position as was agitated before it in right perspective because the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 02.02.2012 passed in Misc. Case No.58/02-03/22/03-04 had cancelled the jamabandi of land in question which was affirmed by the order passed by the State Government on 29.07.2015, as such, there cannot be a situation of issuance of rent receipt. 5. Per contra, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, respondent herein, has submitted that the plea which was taken by the writ petitioner and is being taken before this Court that by putting reliance upon the order dated 02.02.2012 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Misc. 5. Per contra, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, respondent herein, has submitted that the plea which was taken by the writ petitioner and is being taken before this Court that by putting reliance upon the order dated 02.02.2012 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in Misc. Case No.58/02-03/22/03-04 which has already been quashed and set aside by this Court vide order dated 31.03.2008 in W.P.(C) No.4895 of 2007 as also the order passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi in Revenue Appeal No.122 of 2006 but the order dated 31.03.2008 passed in W.P.(C) No.4895 of 2007 has never been questioned by the State, as such, the same has attained its finality and once the order of cancellation of jamabandi has been set aside by this Court there is no hurdle in issuance of rent receipt. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, was correct in passing the order which has been impugned by the State in the instant intra-court appeal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record and have also gone across the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. Following are the admitted facts: The land in question is recorded in record of rights as Gair Mazarua Malik in the name of Baralal Kandrap Nath Shahdeo under Khewat No.2 of the said village which according to the petitioners, was settled by way of hukumnama dated 31.01.1943 in favour of one Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo. By virtue of that, he came in possession of the said land and paid rent of the said land to the landlord. The landlord created a Trust known as “Chintamani Trust” and transferred the said land including other properties to the Trust and accordingly the settlee started paying rent to the Trust. After vesting of the land, the return was filed by the said Trust but a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 was initiated against the Trust with respect to the said land but after due enquiry, the proceeding was dropped vide order dated 03.08.1959 by an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi. Thereafter, the demand was opened in the name of Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo by the order of the Additional Collector, Ranchi vide Letter No.3247 dated 07.12.1964 and he started paying rent to the State. Thereafter, the demand was opened in the name of Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo by the order of the Additional Collector, Ranchi vide Letter No.3247 dated 07.12.1964 and he started paying rent to the State. After the death of Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo, his wife, namely, Draupadi Devi inherited the said land and came in physical possession. Some portion of the land was sold out, which was marked as Sub Plot No.492/A of Khata No.383, to the mother of the petitioners-Lal Damodar Nath Shahdeo and Bara Lal Govind Nath Sahdeo, namely, Kanak Kumari Devi by virtue of registered deed dated 23.02.1983 and possession was also given to her. Draupadi Devi also sold 20 acres of said land, which was marked as Sub Plot No. 492/B of Khata No.383 to one Anapurna Devi by another sale deed dated 19.02.1983 and she also came in physical possession of the same. Both Kanak Kumari Devi and Anapurna Devi filed applications before the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi for mutation of the names of the purchasers being registered as Misc. Case No.1/1985-86 and Misc. Case No.2/1985-86. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Ranchi vide order dated 01.07.1988 made a recommendation to the Additional Collector Ranchi for realization of rent from the applicants. But, in the meantime, a proceeding was initiated against Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo with respect of 88 acres of land pertaining to Plot No.492 and 496 of Khata No.383 situated at village Pundag Thana No.228, District Ranchi and by order dated 15.06.2006, the Jamabandi running in the name of Lal Maheshwar Nath Shahdeo was cancelled. Aggrieved by the said order, Kanak Kumari Devi and others filed an appeal being Revenue Appeal No.122 of 2006 which was also rejected. Thereafter, Kanak Kumari Devi alongwith Anapurna Devi filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(C) No.4895 of 2007, which was allowed vide order dated 31.03.2008 and the order of cancellation of Jamabandi was set aside. Thereafter, the respondent-State of Jharkhand preferred a petition for modification of the order, being C.M.P. No.214 of 2008, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. After death of Kanak Kumari Devi, the petitioner-Lal Damodar Nath Shahdeo approached the respondents for issuance of rent receipt but when no decision was taken, a contempt case being Cont. (Civil) Case No.52 of 2013 was filed which was dismissed for default. After death of Kanak Kumari Devi, the petitioner-Lal Damodar Nath Shahdeo approached the respondents for issuance of rent receipt but when no decision was taken, a contempt case being Cont. (Civil) Case No.52 of 2013 was filed which was dismissed for default. A writ petition being W.P.(C) No.283 of 2011 was also filed by Anapurna Devi, which was allowed vide order dated 25.01.2011, against which a letters patent appeal being L.P.A No. 244 of 2012 was filed by the respondent-State and the same was dismissed vide order dated 08.10.2012. Thereafter, the rent receipt was being issued to said Anapurna Devi. The petitioner-Lal Damodar Nath Shahdeo filed W.P.(C) No.644 of 2016 for issuance of rent receipt in his favour wherein the respondent-State has filed counter affidavit stating therein that the Jamabandi of the settlee was cancelled on 02.02.2012 by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi which was confirmed on 29.07.2015 u/s 4(h) of the Act, 1950. Thereafter, the petitioner-Lal Damodar Nath Shahdeo filed another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.3581 of 2017 and the petitioners-Anapurna Devi and Bara Lal Govind Nath Sahdeo have filed W.P.(C) No.2783 of 2017 challenging the order dated 02.02.2012. 7. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi while passing the order dated 02.02.2012, was aware of the fact about the cancellation of jamabandi vide order dated 22.01.2007 passed in Revenue Appeal No.122 of 2006 and the order dated 15.06.2006 passed in Misc. Case No.58/02-03/22/03-04 wherein the order of cancellation of jamabandi has already been quashed and set aside vide order dated 31.03.2008 passed in W.P.(C) No.4895 of 2007. 8. Thus, it is evident that the Deputy Commissioner ought to have taken into consideration the order dated 31.03.2008 [W.P.(C) No.4895 of 2007] before passing the order dated 02.02.2012 wherein the order for cancelling the jamabandi as passed vide order dated 15.06.2006 in Misc. Case No.58/02-03/22/03-04 and the order dated 22.01.2007 passed in Revenue Appeal No.122 of 2006 have already been quashed, therefore, the learned Single Judge arrived to such conclusive finding. 9. Case No.58/02-03/22/03-04 and the order dated 22.01.2007 passed in Revenue Appeal No.122 of 2006 have already been quashed, therefore, the learned Single Judge arrived to such conclusive finding. 9. This Court, after considering the aforesaid admitted fact and admission on the part of the appellant-State, is to examine that once the order of cancellation of jamabandi has been quashed and set aside by this Court, which has not been assailed before the higher forum, can the appellant-State take the plea of non-issuance of rent receipt in the garb of the order dated 02.02.2012. 10. It is admitted fact as would appear from the impugned order and to that effect no ground has been taken about the infirmity in the fact so far as it relates to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.4895 of 2007 dated 31.03.2008. 11. It further appears from the material available on record that there is no averment to the effect that the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.4895 of 2007 has been assailed by the appellant-State before the higher forum, in that situation, the order passed in W.P.(C) No.4895 of 2007 dated 31.03.2008 by which the order dated 15.06.2006 in Misc. Case No.58/02-03/22/03-04 and the order dated 22.01.2007 passed in Revenue Appeal No.122 of 2006 have already been quashed, it is not available for the appellant-State to take the plea of the operation of the order dated 02.02.2012. The sole ground taken is for non-issuance of rent receipt by the authorities of the appellant-State. 12. The question of applicability of Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 has been discussed by the learned Single Judge by going through the provision of Section 4(h) wherein it has been provided that the settlement made prior to 01.01.1946 will be outside the purview of Section 4(h). 13. 12. The question of applicability of Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 has been discussed by the learned Single Judge by going through the provision of Section 4(h) wherein it has been provided that the settlement made prior to 01.01.1946 will be outside the purview of Section 4(h). 13. We are not deliberating upon the issue in view of the fact that the basis upon which the appellant-State is taking the stand of non-issuance of rent receipt, which has been affirmed in Revenue Appeal No.122 of 2006 has already been quashed and set aside vide order dated 31.03.2008 passed in W.P.(C) No.4895 of 2007, therefore, the very basis of the denial of the claim of the writ petitioner since is not in existence, therefore, the issue of jurisdiction to cancel the jamabandi or applicability of Section 4(h) has wrongly been agitated by the appellant in the instant case. The concern of this Court is that when the very basis of the denial of the claim of the writ petitioners which is the order dated 15.06.2006 in Misc. Case No.58/02-03/22/03-04 and the order dated 22.01.2007 passed in Revenue Appeal No.122 of 2006 have already been quashed by this Court vide order dated 31.03.2008 it is not available for the appellant-State to take the plea of the aforesaid order in not issuing the rent receipt since it is the admitted fact that the said order has attained its finality. 14. The learned Single Judge considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter about the order of writ court dated 31.03.2008 [W.P.(C) No.4895 of 2007] as also considered the fact that the long running jamabandi cannot be cancelled, has quashed and set aside the order passed by the revenue authority. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramayan Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2013) 3 PLJR 533 , wherein it has been held that long running jamabandi cannot be cancelled, save and except, by filing a suit before the competent court of civil jurisdiction. Further, the question of applicability of section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 would be there only if the settlement would be on or after 01.01.1946. Further, the question of applicability of section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 would be there only if the settlement would be on or after 01.01.1946. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxman Sahni vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (1990) 1 PLJR 170 , wherein it has been laid down to the effect that recourse for cancellation of jamabandi under the sections can be taken only where any estate or tenure or any part thereof vests in the State. Section 4(h) clothes the Collector with jurisdiction to make enquiries in respect of transfers made any time after 1st January, 1946. 15. This Court has raised the conformant of power upon the authority in cancellation of jamabandi but the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State has not been able to show any provision of Law in this regard. 16. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the learned Single Judge arrived to the conclusion by deliberating upon the issue by holding in the impugned order about the illegal action of the State in taking wrong decision, which does not suffer from infirmity. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 17. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of.