JUDGMENT : I.A. No. 8258 of 2019: 1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing. 2. The instant interlocutory application is under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 110 days in preferring the instant appeal. 3. No objection has been made on behalf of the respondents since no counter affidavit to the delay condonation application has been filed. 4. This Court, after taking into consideration the reason assigned in the instant application as also considering the fact that instead of dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation it would be appropriate in the ends of justice to decide the appeal on its merit, accordingly, the delay of 110 days in filing the appeal, is condoned. 5. In the result, the instant interlocutory application is disposed of. L.P.A. No. 236 of 2019: 6. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred by the writ petitioner-appellant under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 24.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 4960 of 2010, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 11.11.2009 passed in Misc. Case No. 2/08-09 has been refused to be interfered with while dismissing the writ petition. 7. The brief facts of the lis as per the pleading made in the writ petition which is required to be enumerated, reads as hereunder: The writ petitioner, namely, Abdul Majid Khan claims to have a land by way of settlement appertaining to Plot No. 194 under Khata No. 49 situated at Village Nimakatu within the district of Chatra which was made in favour of his father sometime in the year 1949 by virtue of Sada Hukumnama. The ancestors of the writ petitioner, after the settlement of the aforesaid land in favour of his father, have shared the said land by way of family arrangement in favour of the writ petitioner so far as the land in question is concerned which was subsequently been informed to the ex-landlord and the name of the writ petitioner was recorded in the Serishta of the ex-landlord and after vesting the zamindari the ex-landlord filed return showing him as a raiyat, which was acknowledged by the State and jamabandi was created in the name of the writ petitioner and his name was entered in Register-II. The writ petitioner has started paying rent to the State of Bihar and paid till 1960-61 but he failed to pay the same from 1961 to 1964- 65. The Circle Officer has issued notice to the writ petitioner on 23.11.1987 stating therein that the demand in respect of the land which is with regard to 21.04 acres over Plot No. 194 under Khata No. 49 appears to be doubtful. In consequence thereof, a proceeding was initiated against the writ petitioner which was numbered as Illegal Demand Case No. 17/1987-88. The writ petitioner had appeared and produced all the documents. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, on scrutiny of the documents, had opined that the jamabandi was opened without the order of Circle Officer, as such, appears to be doubtful and at the same time jamabandi of the writ petitioner was ordered to be cancelled and the records were forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra vide order dated 02.05.1988 directed for cancellation of the jamabandi running in the name of the writ petitioner without issuance of show cause notice before acting on the report of the Circle Officer and Land Reforms Deputy Collector , Chatra. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, approached to this Court by filing a writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1145 of 1988 (R). This Court, quashed the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 05.05.1994 and remitted the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra for fresh decision in accordance with law by relying upon the decisions reported in Harihar Singh vs. Additional Collector, 1978 BBCJ 323 and Khiru Gope vs. L.R.D.C. Jamui, AIR 1983 Patna 121. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra, after lapse of about 13 years of the judgment passed by the High court, had passed an order on 03.08.2007 in Misc. Case No. 136 of 2006 and restored the Jamabandi of the writ petitioner in compliance of the judgment of this Court after perusing the documents with a direction for making correction in the Register-II. The authority of the respondent-State had issued rent receipt in favour of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 with respect to same portion of land, i.e. Plot No. 194 under Khata No. 49 of Mouza-Nimakatu but no notice was given to the writ petitioner. The authority of the respondent-State had issued rent receipt in favour of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 with respect to same portion of land, i.e. Plot No. 194 under Khata No. 49 of Mouza-Nimakatu but no notice was given to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner, on inquiry, learnt that the respondent No. 6 and 7, namely, Amirullah Khan, son of Abdul Latif Khan and respondent No. 7, namely, Shahjahan Khan, son of Abdul Aziz Khan, have made a motion for issuance of rent receipt which was registered as Misc. Case No. 02/08-09 by the Circle Officer, Pratappur in respect of 6 acres of land of Plot No. 194 under Khata No. 54 of Mouza-Nimakatu. Md. Amirullah Khan claimed issuance of rent receipt in respect of 2.50 acres of land whereas Shahjahan Khan claimed issuance of rent receipt in respect of 3.50 acres of land. The writ petitioner objected to the entire proceeding in connection with Misc. Case No. 02/08-09 on the ground of not providing an opportunity of hearing and on the basis of false and incorrect report submitted by the Revenue Karamchari. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Chatra had not applied its mind as to how rent receipts have been directed to be issued in the name of correction of typographical error in favour of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 when this Court had passed an order in C.W.J.C. No. 1145/88(R) which was filed by the writ petitioner and in compliance thereof, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chatra had already passed an order on 03.08.2007 in Misc. Case No. 136/06 restoring the jamabandi of the writ petitioner with respect to 21.04 acres of land pertaining to Plot No. 194 under Khata No. 49 of Mouza-Nimakatu. The writ petitioner being aggrieved with the aforesaid action of the authority, so far as it relates to issuance of rent receipt in favour of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 pertaining to 2.50 acres in the name of Md. Amirullah Khan and 3.50 acres in the name of Shahjahan Khan over the Plot No. 194 under Khata No. 49 of Nimakatu, filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. (C) No. 4960 of 2010. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition refusing to interfere with the impugned orders, against which the instant intra-court appeal has been preferred. 8. Mr. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition refusing to interfere with the impugned orders, against which the instant intra-court appeal has been preferred. 8. Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the Deputy Collector Land Reforms was based upon the report of the Circle Inspector/Revenue Karamchari which led the DCLR to pass an order for issuance of rent receipt after cancelling the jamabandi recorded in the name of the writ petitioner while the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 03.08.2007 had already created jamabandi in favour of the writ petitioner in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1145/88(R) but according to the learned counsel, this aspect of the matter has not been appreciated in right perspective and the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that mere issuance of rent receipt does not create or extinguish any right, title and interest over the property and if the petitioner is claiming the same property for which the rent receipt has been issued in favour of the private respondents, he can get his right, title and interest adjudicated through a competent court of civil jurisdiction. 9. On being called upon by this Court, private respondents have appeared through Mr. H. Waris, learned counsel. Mr. Waris, learned counsel has submitted that the private respondents are no way concerned with the land of the writ petitioner since according to him, the land upon which the order has been passed for issuance of rent receipt is different to that of the writ petitioner. Further, submission has been made that the plot area is very large, of about 69 acres, which has been divided in sub-plots and the plot which the private respondents own. The rent receipt have been directed to be issued but the writ petitioner without any rhyme and reason is questioning the order passed by the revenue authority so far as it relates to issuance of rent receipt which is owned by the private respondents. He also relies upon Annexure-2 and 3 to substantiate his argument. 10. Mr. K.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, in response, submits that if that be the case of the private respondents, the writ petitioner has got no objection if the private respondents are not making any claim over the land which is owned by the writ petitioner. 11. 10. Mr. K.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, in response, submits that if that be the case of the private respondents, the writ petitioner has got no objection if the private respondents are not making any claim over the land which is owned by the writ petitioner. 11. It has further jointly been submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that there will be no objection on the part of the writ petitioner as also respondent Nos. 6 and 7 if the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are not claiming over the land which is being owned by the writ petitioner. 12. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across Annexure-2 dated 03.08.2007 which is an order passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Chatra in Misc. Case No. 136/06. It is evident from the aforesaid order that the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer after having considered the fact that vide order dated 02.05.1988 the Sub- Divisional Officer directed for cancellation of jamabandi running in the name of writ petitioner against which an appeal was filed, the matter finally travelled to this Court by filing writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1145 of 1988 (R) and in pursuance of the aforesaid order, the order of the then Sub-Divisional Officer dated 02.05.1988 was quashed and the sanction was accorded to create jamabandi in favour of the first party, i.e. Abdul Majid Khan (petitioner) over the land in question and subsequent to the aforesaid order, Misc. Case being Misc. Case No. 2/08-09 was preferred by the private respondent Nos. 6 and 7 praying therein to issue rent receipt for an area of 3.50 acres and 2.50 acres which total comes to 6.00 acres over Plot No. 194 under Khata No. 49. The Circle Officer, Pratappur has passed an order on 11.11.2009 directing for issuance of rent receipt in favour of respondent Nos. 6 and 7. This Court, considering the submission made by the learned counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 who has submitted before this Court, on instruction of their clients, that the land upon which the rent receipt sought to be issued on behalf of the petitioner is in no way in connection with the private respondent Nos. 6 and 7. This Court, considering the submission made by the learned counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 who has submitted before this Court, on instruction of their clients, that the land upon which the rent receipt sought to be issued on behalf of the petitioner is in no way in connection with the private respondent Nos. 6 and 7, considering the same, this Court deems it fit and proper to dispose of the instant appeal with the consent of the parties in terms of the following directions: (i) The rent receipt which was directed to be issued by the Circle Officer vide order dated 03.08.2007 in Misc. Case No. 136 of 2006 in favour of the writ petitioner will be continued to be issued in his favour in terms of the aforesaid order pertaining to land in question. (ii) The rent receipt which was directed to be issued by the Circle Officer vide order dated 11.11.2009 passed in Misc. Case No. 2/08-09 in favour of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 will be continued to be issued in their favour. (iii) If the present petitioner is having any claim over the land which is the subject matter of Misc. Case No. 2/08-09, it is left open upon the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the competent court of civil jurisdiction for declaration of right, title and interest because of the settled position of law that issuance of rent receipt neither creates any right nor extinguishes any right. (iv) Likewise, if the private respondent Nos. 6 and 7 will have any claim over the land which is the subject matter of Misc. Case No. 136 of 2006, it is left open upon them to approach before the competent court of civil jurisdiction for declaration of right, title and interest. 13. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed on the aforesaid terms.