ORDER : I.A. No. 228 of 2021 This Interlocutory Application has been filed for expunging the name of the deceased-appellant no. 1 namely, Rampravesh Sahu @ Ramprawesh Sahu who is stated to have died leaving behind the heirs and legal representatives fully described in paragraph no.3. 2. It is contended that the Vakalatnama on behalf of the proposed heirs has also been filed. 3. In view of the statements made in the Interlocutory Application, the same is allowed. 4. Let the name of appellant no. 1-Rampravesh Sahu @ Ramprawesh Sahu be expunged from the array of the appellants and in his place his heirs and legal representatives fully described in paragraph-3 be substituted. 5. However, it is made clear that this order would be subject to objection, if any, raised on behalf of any of the parties or the affected persons in future. L.P.A. No. 743 of 2018 6. The appellants are aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25.10.2018, by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner-respondent was allowed and the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi dated 28.12.2006 was quashed and set aside. 7. In the writ petition the order dated 28.12.2006, passed by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, was put under challenge on several grounds, one of which was that the respondents authority had no jurisdiction to cancel or modify the Jamabandi, which was running continuously since 1955-56. 8. The brief facts, which would be appropriate for consideration of lis as stated in the writ petition, stand enumerated as under: 9. The claim of the writ petitioner was that his father-Dhuran Sahu became settlee of ex-intermediary through Sada Hukumnama on payment of rent in the year 1949. After vesting of Jamindari, Jamabandi was created in his favour and he continued paying rent since 1955-56 when Jamanbandi was created. The father of the writ petitioner died and thereafter a proceeding for correction of Jamabandi was initiated in the year 1988-89 with respect to 4.60 acres of land out of Plot No. 4206 and 0.04 Acres each out of Plot Nos. 3361 and 4394, which were settled through Hukumnama dated 04.02.1949 in favour of Dhuran Sahu. 10. Let it be noted that as per the claim of the writ petitioner, immediately after vesting of Estates, Jamabandi bearing No.297/4 was created in the name of his father-Late Dhuran Sahu. 3361 and 4394, which were settled through Hukumnama dated 04.02.1949 in favour of Dhuran Sahu. 10. Let it be noted that as per the claim of the writ petitioner, immediately after vesting of Estates, Jamabandi bearing No.297/4 was created in the name of his father-Late Dhuran Sahu. Thereafter, rent was being paid to the State of Bihar by his father for the entire are of 4.68 Acres. It is also stated in the writ petition that in the year 1962-63 a proceeding for removal of encroachment was initiated under the provisions of Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act by registering a case bearing Encroachment Case No. 1/18 of 1962-63 against the father of the writ petitioner namely, Dhuran Sahu. The order dated 15.06.1966 passed in the said Encroachment Case has been brought on record as Annexure-3. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gumla has observed and dropped the proceeding in the following manner : “Party present. Heard his lawyer. He has filed sada Hukumnama and rent receipts granted by the ex-landlord. The area of plot No.4206 settled with him is clearly shows as 4.60 acres and total area settled with him is 4.68 acres. The entry in Register II is also 4.68 acres. There is nothing malafide. In bujharat register also, the area of plot No.4206 settled should be shown as 4.60 acres. The proceeding is dropped.” 11. From the aforesaid order it has become clear that the authority had accepted that there is settlement by Hukumnama for 4.60 Acres of land of the concerned plot and there is already entry in Register-II regarding the entire settlement, i.e., 4.68 Acres and there is nothing mala fide in it. It is also noted down that the area of Plot No. 4206 settled, was also shown in Bujharat Register and, as such, the proceeding was dropped. 12. The claim of the writ petitioner is that by virtue of registered deed of gift dated 05.01.1978, executed by his father, he became the owner of the aforesaid plot and accordingly came in possession thereof and applied for mutation of his name in place of his father in Mutation Case No. 24/1977-78, which was allowed and, accordingly, his name was mutated for putting 14.465 acres of land including 4.60 acres of land of plot no.4206. Thereafter, the writ petitioner claimed that he continued to possess the aforesaid land and was paying rent till 1982 but in the year 1983 Halka Karamchari stopped issuing rent receipt on the ground of certain objection, raised by respondents-appellants which led to registering of Jamabandi correction case being Miscellaneous Case No. 4/1987-88. The Circle Officer vide its order dated 02.08.1989 rejected the objection raised by the respondents-appellants. Then, an appeal bearing Mutation Appeal Case No. 21/1989-90 was filed before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gumla in which an order was passed to issue rent receipt with respect to 1.60 acres of plot no.4206 in favour of respondent nos. 6 and 7 and continue Jamabandi of the petitioner only to the extent of 60 decimal of land in place of 4.60 acres. The order was assailed by the writ petitioner by filing Mutation Revision No. 33-R-15/1991. The revision application was dismissed upholding the views of the appellate authority. The order of rejection of the revision was impugned in the writ petition. 13. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties has come to the conclusion that a long jamabandi was running in favour of the writ petitioner for the entire 4.60 acres since 1955-56 and even though the allegations have been made that Hukumnama and Record of Rights etc. were manipulated, it is not clear as to how 0.60 acres of Jamabandi can be accepted in the manner, completely ignoring the finding recorded by the competent authority in the encroachment case and there was no occasion for disturbing long running Jamabandi and disrupting payment of rent. However, it would be open to the parties to get their right, title and interest decided and declared by a court of competent jurisdiction. 14. The said order has been assailed in the present appeal by the respondents-appellants on diverse ground. It is contended that the enquiry was held and the authority has found that there was manipulation in the Hukumnama as well as Record of Rights and none of the parties could produce Jamindari receipt etc. Thus, there was no occasion of continuing Jamabandi in the name of the writ petitioner for the entire area of 4.60 acres of land. It is further contended that fraud vitiates very solemnity of proceeding and, therefore, Jamabandi created in favour of the father of the writ petitioner and thereafter the writ petitioner has to go. Thus, there was no occasion of continuing Jamabandi in the name of the writ petitioner for the entire area of 4.60 acres of land. It is further contended that fraud vitiates very solemnity of proceeding and, therefore, Jamabandi created in favour of the father of the writ petitioner and thereafter the writ petitioner has to go. It is also submitted that in fact the name of the respondents-appellants’ father stands entered in Register-II with respect to 1.25 acres of land of Plot No.4206. Thus, there is an overlapping and, as such, the Jamabandi had to be adjusted accordingly. It is also contended that a Title Suit has also been filed by the writ petitioner for a portion of 20 decimals of land of the same plot. 15. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and bestowing anxious consideration to the materials available on record, we are of the view that this appeal has to fail for the following reasons: 16. The respondents-appellants claimed that 1.25 decimal of land out of Plot No. 4206 was settled by the erstwhile Jamindar in the year 1946 itself, even prior to the settlement in favour of father of the writ petitioner in the year 1949 but he never claimed that after vesting of Jamindari immediately Jamabandi was created in his favour, whereas, the writ petitioner claimed that Jamabandi was created immediately after vesting in the year 1955-56. When the question was put to the learned counsel for the appellants, he replied that Jamabandi was created in the year 1989-90. It is intriguing that, when the settlement was made through Hukumnana in the year 1946 itself, why Jamabandi in favour of the appellants was not created immediately after bujharat, i.e., on vesting of Jamabandi. Learned counsel does not have any answer to it. 17. Now, for a long time, as has been noted by the learned Single Judge, the Jamabandi was running in favour of the father of the writ petitioner and thereafter the writ petitioner. During that long period, no question was ever raised regarding any manipulation or fraud and suddenly in the year 1989, such objection was being raised after about more than 30 years of opening of Jamabandi. 18. During that long period, no question was ever raised regarding any manipulation or fraud and suddenly in the year 1989, such objection was being raised after about more than 30 years of opening of Jamabandi. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants has tried to impress upon us that the fraud vitiates very solemnity of the proceeding and since the fraud has been committed by the writ petitioner, Jamabandi has to be cancelled or modified. Cancellation we can understand but modification we cannot understand, which has been done by the appellate authority and revisional authority. If Jamabandi suffers from the vice of fraud then it could have been cancelled in totality but how it can be assumed to be correct to the extent of 0.60 acres and for other part it would be considered as interpolation. If fraud vitiates very solemnity of the proceeding, then entire exercise of correction of Jamabandi in favour of the writ petitioner was wrong and the entire Jamabandi would have gone and not in part. That apart, at the same time this is also well known dictum of law that the chain of fraud has to be completed and proved. Whether the revisional court was competent to hold and declare such fraud?; whether revisional court could have ignored the order passed by the competent authority under the Bihar Public and Land Encroachment Act, which has attained finality? and whether fraud could have been proved in such type of summary manner by applying assumption and presumption? 19. The revisional court has used the word ‘suspicion’. It says that in view of the fact stated therein, creation of Jamabandi becomes suspicious. Suspicion, however may be strong, cannot take place of evidence. Even in a civil suit, if fraud is pleaded and issue is framed regarding that, the Court has also to examine it and decide it in a manner not like a civil suit is decided rather in a manner in which criminal trial is decided that means that fraud has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts otherwise such allegation would fail. 20. Whether the issue of fraud has been put to such test by the revisional court? Answer has to be in negative. Only on the basis of the suspicion having been raised, it has been assumed that there is interpolation without holding as to how the writ petitioner could have interpolated the official records etc. 20. Whether the issue of fraud has been put to such test by the revisional court? Answer has to be in negative. Only on the basis of the suspicion having been raised, it has been assumed that there is interpolation without holding as to how the writ petitioner could have interpolated the official records etc. Without completing the chain and without examining the things in a manner which should have been done, it has been held that there is interpolation both in Hukumnama and revenue record also, which cannot be accepted. 21. Having said so, it is also well established that entry in revenue records or record of rights neither creates nor extinguishes any right, title and interest. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has taken care of it and has held that running of Jamabandi will always be subject to any decision regarding right, title and interest rendered by a Court of competent jurisdiction in the properly instituted suit. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are of the view that the appellants have not been able to raise any plausible ground before us so that we could intervene into the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 23. In the result, this appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. 24. However, there would be no order as to costs.