ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Before the writ Court, the appellant questioned legality of the order dated 22nd January 2010 passed by the Additional Collector, Dhanbad by which a recommendation was sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad for initiating a proceeding against the person who was responsible for illegal transfer/jamabandi of the land in question. By order dated 22nd January 2010, the Additional Collector, Dhanbad made a further recommendation for initiating a proceeding under section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. 2. At the outset, we may observe that the recommendation dated 22nd January 2010 by the Additional Collector, Dhanbad seems to be approved by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad on 25th January 2010 -endorsement in this regard can be seen at the bottom of the order dated 22nd January 2010. 3. The appellant questioned jurisdiction of the Additional Collector, Dhanbad to cancel long standing jamabandi created in his name and powers of the Additional Collector, Dhanbad to initiate a proceeding under section 4 (h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. 4. Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, the learned counsel for the appellant refers to a communication dated 9th December 1998 issued by the Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar to seek support to the aforesaid submissions made by him. 5. We have gone through the writ Court's records which are attached with the present Letters Patent Appeal. We find that the learned writ Court granted opportunity to bring on record the necessary supporting documents by an order dated 28th March 2018. Further opportunity was granted on 18th April 2018 as well as 10th May 2018. 6. Mr. Rajiv Nandan Prasad, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that photo copies of the registered sale deeds and unregistered deed of exchange through which the petitioner is claiming a right over the land in question were filed before the writ Court through supplementary affidavit dated 28th September 2010. 7. We have gone through the additional documents filed by the appellant before the writ Court and find that there is no connection between the documents of exchange and the dispute raised before the writ Court. 8. 7. We have gone through the additional documents filed by the appellant before the writ Court and find that there is no connection between the documents of exchange and the dispute raised before the writ Court. 8. On the basis of the sale deed and documents of exchange, the appellant seeks to raise an inference as regards nature of the land which according to him was given to his father Madan Lal Agrawalla through a deed of exchange by Prasadi Rai, Bhola Rai, Kandan Rai and Ghanshyam Rai. 9. The sale deed dated 11th May 1961 was executed by Ghanshyam Rai who was shown a minor at the time when the deed of exchange was executed in favour of the father of the appellant, in favour of one Surendra Kumar Agrawalla. 10. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that no objection was issued by the State for the said piece of land when it was sold by Ghanshyam Rai to Surendra Kumar Agrawalla which is a part of the plot nos. 643 and 646 and, therefore, it must be held that the land covered under unregistered deed of exchange was also a raiyati land in respect of which mutation was created in the name of the appellant's father. 11. In the counter-affidavit, the State of Jharkhand pleaded before the writ Court as under : “9. That it is stated and submitted that the lands measuring area of 0.59 acres and 0.60 acres in plot nos. 643 and 646 in Mouza Gosaidih Mouza No. 127 of Khata No. 38 is recorded as Gair-abad land in the record of right and not in Khata No. 6, but in the jamabandi nos. 126 and 162 under Khata No. 6 in place of Khata No. 38 have been shown in the jamabandi erroneously opened with the connivance of the then Halka Karamchari and rent receipts were issued in favour of Madan Lal Agarwalla without obtaining any order from the competent authority, i.e. Circle Officer, Govindpur number shown in the said jamabandis. Thus, these jamabandis were found to have been opened/created or shown in the jamabandi with the connivance of the Halka Karamchari.” 12. The materials on record would indicate that on the complaints made by Sohagi Ghatwalin and Prakash Rai inquires were made with respect to jamabandi of the land in question at different official levels. Thus, these jamabandis were found to have been opened/created or shown in the jamabandi with the connivance of the Halka Karamchari.” 12. The materials on record would indicate that on the complaints made by Sohagi Ghatwalin and Prakash Rai inquires were made with respect to jamabandi of the land in question at different official levels. It further appears that before the order dated 22nd January 2010 was passed notice was issued to the appellant in pursuance of which he submitted his reply on 10th August 2009 producing as many as 10 documents in support of the claim raised by him in respect of the land in question. 13. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned writ Court has held as under : “9. Considering the impugned order and considering the statements made by the respondents in paragraph nos. 9 and 10 of the counter-affidavit, this Court finds that serious disputed questions of facts are involved in this case which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. Moreover, the petitioner has not brought on record the required documents for appreciation of the facts of the case inspite of repeated opportunities. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.” 14. We find from the materials on record that serious questions of right, title and ownership as regards the land in question were involved before the learned writ Court and therefore the learned writ Court has rightly held that such questions cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceeding. We further find that inspite of opportunities granted, the appellant failed to produce such documents which could have shown that the disputes sought to be raised by the State of Jharkhand was not sustainable and in view of the judgment in “ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd.” (2004) 3 SCC 553 , the learned writ Court has jurisdiction to decide the matter. 15. However, at the same time we find that in the order dated 22nd January 2010 there is no reference about most of the documents submitted by the appellant vide his representation dated 10th August 2009. 16. Therefore, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the case, while affirming the order dated 17th May 2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.4518 of 2010, we grant liberty to the appellant to get his rights adjudicated through the process of the Court. 16. Therefore, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the case, while affirming the order dated 17th May 2018 passed in W.P.(C) No.4518 of 2010, we grant liberty to the appellant to get his rights adjudicated through the process of the Court. Since it is not disputed that the appellant is in possession of the land in question for several years, we are inclined to restrain the State of Jharkhand not to take any further action in connection to the order dated 22nd January 2010 for the next three months. 17. Letters Patent Appeal No. 359 of 2018 is dismissed. 18. Consequently, intervener's petition for adding the applicant as party-respondent being I.A. No. 6468 of 2021 stands disposed of.