Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 343 (JHR)

Sardar Daljeet Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2021-03-25

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2021
ORDER : 1. This case is taken up through video conferencing. 2. The present writ petition was initially filed for quashing the letter dated 18.07.2017, contained in memo no. 187(A)/Legal issued in Record Case No. 29 of 2017-18 under the signature of Legal In-charge, Office of Deputy Commissioner, East Singbhum, Jamshedpur-respondent no.4 and also for quashing the entire proceeding initiated for cancellation of Jamabandi running in the name of the petitioner. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum-respondent no.3 passed the final order dated 01.09.2017 in Record Case No. 29 of 2017-18 during the pendency of the present writ petition and as such by way of filing an interlocutory application being I.A No. 98 of 2021, the petitioner made additional prayer to the extent of quashing the aforesaid final order dated 01.09.2017. The said interlocutory application was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 28.01.2021 with an observation that the additional prayer made at paragraph no.9 and additional facts stated in different sub-paragraphs of paragraph no.10 of the interlocutory application would be treated to be the part of the writ petition. 4. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that one Alomoni Kamarin, who was the raiyat of the land appertaining to old Khata No.40, old Plot Nos.1566, 1567, 1568 1569, 1570 and 1572, admeasuring total area of 5.26 acres (new Khata no.622 and new plot no.6048), situated at village Khuntadih, District East Singhbhum, filed Case No.264 of 2001-02 under section 90 of the Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 (in short ‘the Act, 1908’) before the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum against the wrong entry made in the record of rights as “Anabad Bihar Sarkar” with respect to the aforesaid land belonging to her. The said application of Alomoni Kamarin was allowed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jamshedpur vide order dated 05.08.2002 directing to correct the record of rights. Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd.-respondent no.5 preferred a writ petitioner, being W.P.(C) No. 1981 of 2003, praying inter alia to quash the order dated 05.08.2002 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jamshedpur in Case No. 264 of 2001-02. Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd.-respondent no.5 preferred a writ petitioner, being W.P.(C) No. 1981 of 2003, praying inter alia to quash the order dated 05.08.2002 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jamshedpur in Case No. 264 of 2001-02. The aforesaid writ petition was tagged with another writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 6816 of 2005, challenging consequential letters dated 05.09.2005 and 27.10.2005 issued by the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand and the Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, respectively, to the respondent no.3 as well as general notice dated 19.11.2005 issued by the respondent-State pursuant to the order dated 05.08.2002 for making necessary correction in the record of rights. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the petitioner entered into an agreement to sale with Alomoni Kamarin on 06.05.2003 and subsequently the sale deed was also executed in his favour on 05.03.2012. Both the writ petitions were finally dismissed vide common order dated 23.04.2012, holding inter alia that the respondent no.5 being the lessee was not entitled to challenge the order dated 05.08.2002, as there was no correction of entry in the remarks column of the record of rights. It was further held that the respondent no.5 failed to show any payment of compensation to the recorded raiyat under section 50(5) of the Act, 1908. Aggrieved by the order dated 23.04.2012, the respondent no.5 preferred letters patent appeal being L.P.A No. 236 of 2012, wherein the order of status quo with respect to the property in question was passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court on 15.06.2012. During the pendency of the said L.P.A., learned Additional Advocate General, Government of Jharkhand wrote letter dated 04.07.2017 addressed both to the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue & Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum-respondent no. 3 stating therein that as per oral observation of the Court, the State Government was free to take corrective measure, pass necessary orders and take necessary action with respect to the matter and the order of Status quo passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court would not come in the way of the State Government in taking corrective decisions or actions in accordance with law. On the basis of the said communication made by the learned Additional Advocate General, the Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration & Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand- respondent no.2 wrote a letter to the respondent no.3, requesting therein to take action on the said matter in accordance with law. Thereafter, a notice was issued by the respondent no.4 to the petitioner informing him that there was a proposal for cancellation of Jamabandi of the said land standing in his name and as such he was directed to appear before the respondent no.3 on 25.07.2017 at 10:30 a.m. along with relevant documents with respect to the land. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. During pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent no.3 passed the order of cancellation of Jamabandi with respect to the said land, which has also been challenged by way of filing an interlocutory application i.e. I.A. No.98 of 2021. 5. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that the then learned Additional Advocate General, Government of Jharkhand issued letter dated 04.07.2017 addressed both to the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand and the respondent no.3, quoting false oral observation said to have been made in L.P.A. No.236 of 2012 and on the basis of said letter, the Joint Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand-respondent no.2 issued letter dated 10.07.2017 directing the respondent no.3 to initiate a proceeding with respect to the said land, which led to initiation of the proceeding under section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 vide Record Case No.29 of 2017-18 and the impugned notice dated 18.07.2017 was issued by the respondent no.4 to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the said act of the then learned Additional Advocate General was brought to the notice of the learned Division Bench of this Court on 26.04.2018 and the learned Division Bench condemned such illegal act and directed the then learned Additional Advocate General to file an affidavit withdrawing all such letters within 24 hours. It is further submitted that the said act of the then learned Additional Advocate General was brought to the notice of the learned Division Bench of this Court on 26.04.2018 and the learned Division Bench condemned such illegal act and directed the then learned Additional Advocate General to file an affidavit withdrawing all such letters within 24 hours. Accordingly, affidavits were filed by the respondent no.2 in the LPA No.227 of 2012 and LPA No.236 of 2012 on 27.04.2018, intimating that the letter issued to the respondent no.3 on the basis of the letter of the Additional Advocate General, quoting oral observation of the Court, was withdrawn. It is further submitted that the said land was recorded as a raiyati land in the name of Bengal Kumar-father-in-law of Alomoni Kamarin and she had acquired the said land by way of inheritance. Therefore, there was no question of making any enquiry for cancellation of Jamabandi in her name or in favour of the purchaser-petitioner, who purchased the said land after making payment of consideration for the same. It is submitted that the State has right to initiate a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 only in relation to a transfer including the settlement or lease of any land, which has been done after 01.01.1946, with an object of defeating any provisions of the Act, 1950 or causing loss to the State. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that as per the Revisional Survey of 1937, the land in question was recorded as raiyati land in favour of one Bengal Kamar and the same was inherited by Alomani Kamarin, who was daughter-in-law of Bengal Kamar. During the Second World War, the said piece of land was used by the Indian Army for which compensation was paid to the then applicant on 20.08.1953 under “The Defence of India Act, 1939”. The said fact was not presented by the petitioner at the time of hearing of the writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.1981 of 2003 and W.P.(C) No.6816 of 2005. The said fact was not presented by the petitioner at the time of hearing of the writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.1981 of 2003 and W.P.(C) No.6816 of 2005. It is further submitted that the status quo granted by the learned Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.06.2012 passed in LPA No. 236 of 2012 is with respect to the property in question, the physical possession of which was not interfered, rather the respondent no.3 passed an order dated 01.09.2017 in exercise of power conferred under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 to correct a mistake done by the then Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum Jamshedpur by opening Jamabandi of the said land in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 25.05.2012 passed in Jamabandi Record No.02/2005-06. It is also submitted that vide notice dated 18.07.2017, the petitioner was asked to place his case along with necessary documents in support of Jamabandi created in his favour for the said land, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. In Record Case No. 29 of 2017-18, the petitioner prayed for one month’s time for filing show cause affidavit and as such he was directed to file the same on or before the next date of hearing i.e. 01.08.2017. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 01.08.2017 the petitioner again prayed for some time for filing show cause affidavit and the next date of hearing was fixed for 08.08.2017. Meanwhile, this Court passed order dated 31.07.2017 in the instant writ petition giving liberty to the parties to file appropriate application before the respondent no.3, annexing the relevant documents including the orders of this Court passed in the letters patent appeal and the writ applications being W.P.(C) No.1981 of 2003 & W.P.(C) No.6816 of 2005 on or before 18.08.2017 and the respondent no.3 was directed to pass a reasoned order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The date of appearance in the notice dated 18.7.2017 was also extended. The petitioner produced the order dated 31.07.2017 before the respondent no.3 on 08.08.2017 and requested for some time. The respondent no.3 fixed the next date of hearing as 22.08.2017 for filing reply to the show cause. The petitioner filed reply on 18.08.2017, enclosing a copy of order dated 31.07.2017 passed in the instant writ petition and the order dated 15.06.2012 passed in LPA No. 236 of 2012. The respondent no.3 fixed the next date of hearing as 22.08.2017 for filing reply to the show cause. The petitioner filed reply on 18.08.2017, enclosing a copy of order dated 31.07.2017 passed in the instant writ petition and the order dated 15.06.2012 passed in LPA No. 236 of 2012. On 22.08.2017, the respondent no.3 fixed the next date of hearing as 29.08.2017. The writ petitioner filed a preliminary objection on 29.08.2017 regarding maintainability of the Record Case No. 29/2017-18 and prayed for some time for pressing the said preliminary objection and the matter was finally fixed for hearing on 01.09.2017 and the order dated 29.08.2017 was seen by the counsel of the writ petitioner on 30.08.2017. The petitioner again prayed for time on 01.09.2017, which was declined and on the said date itself, the respondent no.3 passed a reasoned order considering all the aspects of the matter including the documents produced by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner did not file any affidavit on 01.09.2017 before the respondent no.3 regarding order dated 01.09.2017 passed in the instant writ petition, staying the said proceeding. It is further submitted that the order dated 01.09.2017 passed by this Court in I.A. No. 7222 of 2017 was sent by the counsel for the petitioner on the official e-mail I.D. of the respondent no. 3 which could be seen by him in the evening of that day, however, by that time the respondent no.3 had passed the order dated 01.09.2017 in Record Case No. 29/2017-18 and had already forwarded the said record to the Divisional Commissioner, Kolhan, Singbhum Division Chaibasa for further approval. The contention of the petitioner is that he communicated the order dated 01.09.2017 passed by this Court to the respondent no. 3 before passing the impugned order dated 01.09.2017 is not true. The e-mail sent to the office of the respondent no.3 on 01.09.2017 was not within his knowledge before passing the order dated 01.09.2017. It is also submitted that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to place his case before passing the impugned order of cancellation of jamabandi, however, he failed to place his case. It is further submitted that only because the previous authority passed some order due to mistake or ignorance, the petitioner cannot claim his title and possession over the said land. It is further submitted that only because the previous authority passed some order due to mistake or ignorance, the petitioner cannot claim his title and possession over the said land. The petitioner is required to prove the same by dint of authentic records and evidences. The respondent no.5 cannot claim the land in question for itself as it is merely a lessee over a vast area of land which in fact is owned by the State. The State has also filed an interlocutory application in the aforesaid L.P.A. placing all the facts before the learned Division Bench. If the petitioner wants to present any further document, he may do so and the respondent no.3 is ready to consider the same subject to any order or direction passed by this court. The petitioner cannot take the benefit of any mistake of the State authorities so far as the land in question is concerned. He will have to stand on his own legs in support of his title, possession and claim with respect to the said land. 7. Mr. G.M. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.5 submits that since L.P.A No. 236 of 2012 is pending adjudication before the learned Division Bench, this Court may not enter into the merit of the respective claims of the parties. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner is aggrieved with the initiation of proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 for cancellation of jamabandi of the said land during the pendency of the present writ petition, which ultimately ended in passing of the order dated 01.09.2017 by the respondent no.3 cancelling the jamabandi of the land standing in the name of the petitioner. 9. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has put much stress to the argument that the said proceeding has been initiated in utter violation of the order dated 15.06.2012 passed in LPA No. 236 of 2012 whereby the learned Division Bench of this Court had passed the order, directing the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the land in question. Learned senior counsel further submits that the manner in which the then learned Additional Advocate General wrote letter dated 04.07.2017 addressed both to the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand and the respondent no.3 upon which the impugned notice dated 18.07.2017 was issued by the respondent no.4 and the order dated 01.09.2017 was passed by the respondent no.3, hurriedly cancelling the jamabandi of the land that too in violation of the interim order dated 15.06.2012 passed by this Court clearly suggest their mala fide intention against the petitioner. 10. In view of the said submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner raising serious question over the conduct of the respondent no.3, this court thinks it appropriate to briefly narrate the sequence in which the impugned notice dated 18.07.2017 was issued to the petitioner which ultimately resulted in passing the order of cancellation of jamabandi of the said land running in his name. 11. The writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 1981 of 2003 and W.P.(C) No. 6816 of 2005 having been decided against the respondent no.5, it preferred letters patent appeal being L.P.A No. 236 of 2012 in which the learned Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.06.2012 directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the property in question. 12. The then learned Additional Advocate General wrote letter dated 04.07.2017 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and the respondent no.3, informing both of them that an interlocutory application being I.A No. 3252 of 2017 was preferred by the State in LPA No. 236 of 2012 for vacating the order of status quo dated 15.06.2012 or for making appropriate clarification or leave to the State Government for taking appropriate decision about the correct status of the land in dispute. It was further stated in the letter dated 04.07.2017 that the said LPA was listed on 03.07.2017 and on the said date, the then learned Additional Advocate General pressed the said interlocutory application, however, an adjournment was prayed by the other side and thus the Court made oral observation that the State Govt. was free to take coercive measures, pass necessary orders and take necessary actions with respect to the matters and the status quo order passed by the Court might not stand in the way of the State Govt. was free to take coercive measures, pass necessary orders and take necessary actions with respect to the matters and the status quo order passed by the Court might not stand in the way of the State Govt. in taking coercive decisions or actions, if the same was in accordance with law. 13. On the basis of the said communication, the respondent no.2 vide letter no.3577/4 dated 10.07.2017, requested the respondent no.3 to take appropriate steps on the subjected matter in accordance with law. Thereafter, the respondent no.3 initiated a proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 for cancelling the jamabandi and the impugned notice dated 18.07.2017 was issued by the respondent no.4 to the petitioner, directing him to appear and produce relevant documents of the said land. Being aggrieved with the said notice, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition. 14. This court vide order dated 31.07.2017 granted liberty to the parties to file appropriate application before the Collector, Jamshedpur annexing the relevant documents including the orders of this Court passed in L.P.A No. 236 of 2012 and W.P.(C) No.1981 of 2003 along with W.P.(C) No.6816 of 2005 on or before 18.08.2017 and thereafter the Collector was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. The date of appearance mentioned in the notice dated 18th July, 2017 was also extended accordingly. Thereafter, the petitioner brought the order dated 15.06.2012 passed in L.P.A No. 236 of 2012 as well as the order dated 23.04.2012 passed in W.P.(C) No.1981 of 2003 with W.P.(C) No.6816 of 2005 to the notice of the respondent no.3 and requested him to stop the proceeding, however, the said authority continued to proceed with Record Case No. 29 of 2017-18 to adjudicate the proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 due to which the petitioner filed I.A No. 7222 of 2017 in the instant writ petition, praying inter alia for staying further proceeding pending before the respondent no.3 in relation to Record Case No. 29 of 2017-18. This court while hearing I.A No.7222 of 2017, vide order dated 01.09.2017 granted time to the respondent-State to file reply and stayed the said proceeding pending before the respondent no.3. This court while hearing I.A No.7222 of 2017, vide order dated 01.09.2017 granted time to the respondent-State to file reply and stayed the said proceeding pending before the respondent no.3. The contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 01.09.2017 was passed by this Court at around 11.00 a.m. and the proceeding before the respondent no.3 was taken up at about 12 O’clock and the counsel for the petitioner drafted an application for giving information to the respondent no.3 about the order of stay passed by this court, however he refused to receive the same and as such the said application was mailed to the respondent no.3 by the counsel for the petitioner at 12:35 p.m. on 01.09.2017. Despite the said effort of the petitioner’s counsel, the respondent no.3 passed the order on 01.09.2017 itself and the jamabandi of the said land running in the name of the petitioner was cancelled. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts, I find that there are bundle of errors since initiation of proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 till the passing of the final order of cancellation of jamabandi by the respondent no.3. Admittedly, there was an order of status quo dated 15.06.2012 passed by learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A No. 236 of 2012, however, the then learned Additional Advocate General wrote letter dated 04.07.2017 addressed both to the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue & Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi and the respondent no. 3 wrongly intimating them that learned Division Bench had orally granted permission to the State to proceed with the matter. Though the letter dated 04.07.2017 issued by the then learned Additional Advocate General mentioning the said oral observation of the learned Division Bench was subsequently withdrawn, the respondent no.3 did not put the said proceeding on hold. Even when pursuant to the order of this Court dated 31.07.2017, the petitioner brought the orders passed in L.P.A No.236 of 2012 and W.P.(C) No. 1981 of 2003 with W.P.(C) No.6816 of 2005 to the knowledge of the respondent no.3, the said authority continued with the proceeding. Even when pursuant to the order of this Court dated 31.07.2017, the petitioner brought the orders passed in L.P.A No.236 of 2012 and W.P.(C) No. 1981 of 2003 with W.P.(C) No.6816 of 2005 to the knowledge of the respondent no.3, the said authority continued with the proceeding. Thereafter, despite passing of the order dated 01.09.2017 staying further proceeding pending before the respondent no.3 by this Court, he did not comply the same and passed the order cancelling jamabandi of the land standing in the name of the petitioner on the same day i.e. on 01.09.2017. 16. Thus, the manner in which the respondent no.3 proceeded against the petitioner creates strong doubt on his fair conduct. This Court prima facie finds substance in the argument of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the respondent no. 3 was bent upon to cancel the jamabandi of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever and in the said process he went on to violate the orders of this court at several stages of the proceeding. 17. The record of the case clearly suggests that the proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 was initiated on the basis of wrong communication made by the then learned Additional Advocate General, which was subsequently withdrawn. It would be appropriate to observe here that the State Government Counsel especially Advocate General and Additional Advocate General(s) hold office of great importance. They are not only the officers of the court but also the representatives of the State and the courts repose a great deal of confidence in them. They are supposed to render their solemn duty in fairness and communicate true facts of the Court’s proceeding to the State authorities. 18. So far as the issuance of the impugned notice dated 18.07.2017 is concerned, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State has tried to convince this court that the said notice was issued just to correct the mistake committed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in opening jamabandi in the name of the petitioner and the same does not in any way violate the order dated 15.06.2012 passed in LPA No. 236 of 2012. 19. This court is not impressed with such argument of the learned counsel for the State. Once the order of status quo was passed, it was both with respect to the physical as well as the documentary status. 19. This court is not impressed with such argument of the learned counsel for the State. Once the order of status quo was passed, it was both with respect to the physical as well as the documentary status. Since the record of rights was amended vide order dated 05.08.2002 passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum and the same was subsequently confirmed by the writ court in W.P.(C) No. 1981 of 2003 with W.P.(C) No.6816 of 2005, any attempt made by the respondent-State to change the status of the petitioner with respect to the said property is certainly in violation of the interim order of status quo passed by the learned Division Bench of this Court. 20. In a proceeding like 4(h) of the Act, 1950, the government officials are empowered to initiate the same against any land holder under the situation provided therein and to take an appropriate decision thereon. In such type of proceeding, the government officials must act in a manner which reflects fairness in their action. In the case in hand, the conduct of the respondent no.3 in bypassing the interim order of status quo passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 236 of 2012 and the order dated 31.07.2017 passed in the instant writ petition is highly objectionable and reprehensible. It also amounts to breach of trust reposed in him to discharge his statutory functions. The public/government officers are required to act honestly, truly and correctly. An officer having the rank of Deputy Commissioner must not defy the credibility of his/her office shaking the trust and confidence of public at large which is most important and imperative in field of public administration. The authorities of the State as well as all the public bodies are the trustees of the power vested in the State and discharging the trust reposed in them in best possible manner is their primary duty. The principle of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness in governmental action is the core of our constitutional scheme and bureaucratic structure. 21. So far as the argument of Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner touching the merit of the claim of the petitioner upon the said property, this court refrains from making any comment over it, since the same is still sub-judice before the learned Division Bench of this Court. 21. So far as the argument of Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for the petitioner touching the merit of the claim of the petitioner upon the said property, this court refrains from making any comment over it, since the same is still sub-judice before the learned Division Bench of this Court. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also persuaded this Court to issue direction to the State respondents to issue rent receipt in favour of the petitioner, however, the said submission appears to be beyond the subject matter of the present writ petition, hence the same cannot be entertained. 22. By way of I.A No. 5212 of 2020, the petitioner has sought amendment of the writ petition by adding prayer for issuance of direction upon the respondents to forthwith take action against the army personnel and to stop illegal construction being made over the said land. Further prayer has been made for quashing the letter under reference No. 4353(4)Ra dated 24.08.2017 issued by the respondent no.2. It has been contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the military personnel of 324 FD Regiment are also trying to violate the order of status quo granted by the learned Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A No.236 of 2012 by affixing RM Pillars. 23. The respondent-State, in reply to the said interlocutory application, has stated that a letter dated 23.09.2020 has been written to the Commanding Officer, 100 Field Regiment, C/o 56 APO, Sonari to comply the direction of Status quo over the said land which has been replied by the Commanding Officer stating that no new construction is being carried out, however maintenance of existing structures, security fence and clearance of undergrowth is done in a routine manner to maintain security of the premises. 24. This court is of the view that the prayer made in I.A No. 5212 of 2020 is also not the subject matter of the present writ petition and, therefore, the same cannot be entertained. If there is any violation of the order of the status quo passed in LPA No.236 of 2012, the same may be the subject matter of a contempt proceeding against the alleged violator of the said order. 25. If there is any violation of the order of the status quo passed in LPA No.236 of 2012, the same may be the subject matter of a contempt proceeding against the alleged violator of the said order. 25. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the action of the respondent no.3 who initiated the proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 in utter violation of the order dated 01.09.2017 passed by the Division Bench in LPA No.236 of 2012 as well as the order dated 01.09.2017 passed in the present writ petition was void ab initio and as such any subsequent action is also nonest in the eyes of law. 26. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the letter dated 18.07.2017 contained in memo no.187(A)/Legal in Record Case No.29 of 2017-18 whereby proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 was initiated and all the subsequent actions taken thereunder including the impugned order dated 01.09.2017 cancelling the jamabandi of the said land standing in the name of the petitioner are hereby quashed. 27. The action of the officer holding the post of the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur-respondent no.3 who initiated Record Case no.29 of 2017-18 and passed the impugned order dated 01.09.2017 is highly deprecated and is warned to be careful in future. 28. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed with aforesaid observations. 29. I.A No. 5212 of 2020 also stands disposed of.