JUDGMENT : I.A. No.1644 of 2022 The instant interlocutory application has been filed for allowing the legal heirs of petitioner No.1 to make correction in the cause title, subject, Para 1, 2, 4, 5 and prayer portion of I.A. No.977 of 2022 wherein instead of I.A. No.34/2022 filed to add name of daughters namely Kumari Sneha and Pallavi Sharma of Late Pramod Kumar Sharma in the array of legal heirs of petitioner No.1, I.A. No. 32/2022 has been inadvertently typed. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised no objection to the aforesaid prayer. 3. In view of the averments made in the application, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.1644 of 2022 is allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to make necessary correction in I.A. No.977 of 2022 during the course of the day. 5. I.A. No.1644 of 2022 stands disposed of. I.A. No. 977 of 2022 6. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for adding the names of Kumar Sneha and Pallavi Sharma, both daughters of petitioner No.1, who died on 01.04.2020, in the array of legal heirs in para 3 of I.A. No. 34 of 2022 as (C) and (D). 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has raised no objection to the aforesaid prayer. 8. In view of the aforesaid submission and since no objection has been raised on behalf of respondents, the instant interlocutory application being I.A. No.977 of 2022 is allowed. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to make necessary correction in I.A. No.34 of 2022 during the course of the day. 10. I.A. No.977 of 2022 stands disposed of. I.A. No. 34 of 2022 11. I.A. No.34 of 2022 has been filed by the legal heirs of Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 who died on 01.04.2020 and 28.03.2019 respectively to substitute their names in place of Petitioner No.1 and Petitioner No.2, after deleting their names from the cause title of the writ petition. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 13. Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 4 to 6, objected to the said prayer by submitting that Petitioner No.1 died leaving behind his wife, son and two daughters, but interlocutory application has been filed only on behalf of wife and son of petitioner No.1 and the names of his two daughters have been intentionally omitted. 14. Mr. 4 to 6, objected to the said prayer by submitting that Petitioner No.1 died leaving behind his wife, son and two daughters, but interlocutory application has been filed only on behalf of wife and son of petitioner No.1 and the names of his two daughters have been intentionally omitted. 14. Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that he has also filed another interlocutory application being I.A. No. 977 of 2022 for adding the daughters of the petitioner No.1 also in the array of legal heirs along with wife and son. 15. On the basis of the averments made in the instant interlocutory application as also taking into consideration the fact that another interlocutory application has been filed for adding the daughters of Petitioner No.1 in the array of legal heirs of Petitioner No.1, the instant interlocutory application is allowed. 16. Accordingly, office is directed to make necessary correction in the cause title of the writ petition. 17. I.A. No.34 of 2022 stands disposed of. W.P.(C) No.1695 of 2013 18. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein, the order dated 07.11.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla in Misc. Revision Case No.24 of 2007-2008 has been assailed, by which, the Deputy Commissioner, although, has relegated the parties to approach before the competent court of civil jurisdiction but without answering the issue about legality of the order dated 15.05.2003 passed by the Circle Officer, Sisai in Misc. Case No.15 of 2002-2003. 19. It is the case of the writ petitioner that an appeal was filed against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gumla dated 06.07.1961, which finally has been assailed by the respondents before this Court by filing the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.3063 of 2003. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has disposed of the aforesaid writ petition vide order dated 03.07.2003(Annexure-6 to the writ petition), whereby, this Court has refused to give any finding whether the Jamabandi was rightly created and cancellation is correct or not. If any person is aggrieved and wants declaration of right, title and possession/ or restoration of possession may move before the court of competent jurisdiction. The respondents, after considerable delay, has again approached before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Gumla, which was registered as Misc. If any person is aggrieved and wants declaration of right, title and possession/ or restoration of possession may move before the court of competent jurisdiction. The respondents, after considerable delay, has again approached before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Gumla, which was registered as Misc. Appeal Case No.10/06-07 for seeking an order of cancellation of the Jamabandi recorded in the name of the petitioners. The aforesaid case was disposed of vide order dated 05.07.2007, deleting the name of the petitioners from the revenue records. The petitioners, being aggrieved with the same, have approached to the revisional court i.e., the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla being Case No.24/2007-08. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla vide order dated 07.11.2012 has considered the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3063 of 2003 and relegated the parties to move before the competent court of civil jurisdiction for getting the right and title decided. 20. According to the petitioners, the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, although, has relegated the parties to approach before the competent court of civil jurisdiction for getting the title declared but while doing so, the order passed on 05.07.2007, by which, the name of the petitioners have been deleted from the revenue record, has not been quashed. 21. Therefore, the submission has been made that even if the petitioners will approach before the competent court of civil jurisdiction, since the order dated 05.07.2007 passed in Misc. Appeal Case No.10/2006-07, has not been quashed, the said order will prejudice the case of the petitioners and therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, suffers from infirmity. 22. Mr. Mihir Kunal Ekka, learned AC to SC-III appearing for the State of Jharkhand has submitted, in all fairness, that after the order having been passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3063 of 2003, the concerned revenue authority ought not to have entertained the said petition on its merit, but having done so, illegality has been committed. So far as the order passed by the revisional authority is concerned, it has been submitted that there is no infirmity in the said order, however, while passing such order, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have quashed the order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reform, concerned passed in Misc. Appeal Case No.10/2006-07 dated 05.07.2007. 23. Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Appeal Case No.10/2006-07 dated 05.07.2007. 23. Mr. Manjul Prasad, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Babban Prasad, has submitted that since there is an observation made in the order dated 07.11.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla about deciding the right and title by approaching the competent court of civil jurisdiction, therefore, no direction is required by this Court at this stage, however, in all fairness, has submitted that since the Deputy Commissioner, has passed the order without making any reference about the illegality of the order dated 05.07.2007 passed in Misc. Appeal Case No.10/2006-07, therefore, an illegality has been committed by the concerned authority. 24. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the documents appended thereto. 25. This Court before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned order, deems it fit and proper to refer certain undisputed fact of this case. 26. The undisputed fact is that the petitioners as also the private respondents are claiming right and title over the possession of the land in question. The petitioners, at the earlier occasion, has approached to the revenue authority by filing an application which was disposed of, vide order dated 15.05.2003, by which, the names of the petitioners have been directed to be inserted in the revenue record. The private respondents have approached to the High Court by invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 15.05.2003 passed in Misc. Case No.15 of 2002-2003, being W.P.(C) No.3063 of 2003, wherein, the following direction was passed:- “In the aforesaid background, this Court is not inclined to give any finding whether the Jamabandi was rightly created and cancellation is correct or not. If any person is aggrieved and wants declaration of right, title and possession/ or restoration of possession may move before a court of competent jurisdiction.” The private respondents have sat over the matter. However, they have again filed an application before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Gumla for getting the name entered in the revenue records being Misc. Appeal Case No.10/2006-07, wherein, an order dated 05.07.2007 was passed by directing to insert the name of the private respondents and deleting the name of the petitioners. However, they have again filed an application before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Gumla for getting the name entered in the revenue records being Misc. Appeal Case No.10/2006-07, wherein, an order dated 05.07.2007 was passed by directing to insert the name of the private respondents and deleting the name of the petitioners. The petitioners being aggrieved, with the aforesaid order has approached before the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla which was registered as Case No.24/2007-08. The Deputy Commissioner, Gumla has passed the order on 07.11.2012, wherein, after putting reliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3063 of 2003, he has relegated the parties to approach before the competent court of civil jurisdiction for getting the right and title. The petitioners being aggrieved with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Case No.24/2007-08 dated 07.11.2012 as also the Deputy Collector Land Reforms dated 05.07.2007 in Misc. Appeal Case No.10/2006-07 to the effect that even after the petitioners approached before the competent court of civil jurisdiction, the order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, will prejudice their case, since the said order passed by the revenue authority will be taken as evidence by the private respondents. 27. Therefore, the argument has been advanced that the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, is correct in relegating the parties to approach before the competent court of civil jurisdiction but while doing so, it was incumbent upon the Deputy Commissioner, to quash the order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms dated 05.07.2007 in Misc. Appeal Case No.10/2006-07 and having not done so, a serious infirmities have been committed. 28. This Court, taking into consideration the submission made on behalf of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is of the view that when this Court has passed the order and taking into consideration the settled position of law that making entry into the revenue record does not confer any right and title or extinguish the right and title, therefore, the aggrieved parties have been directed to approach before the competent court of civil jurisdiction, as would be evident from the quoted part of the aforesaid order as above. The private respondents, who claim to be in possession, approaches to the court of Deputy Collector Land Reforms after much delay, wherein, the order was passed on 05 .07.2007 in Misc. Appeal Case No.10/2006-07 for inserting their names and by deleting the name of the petitioners. The private respondents, who claim to be in possession, approaches to the court of Deputy Collector Land Reforms after much delay, wherein, the order was passed on 05 .07.2007 in Misc. Appeal Case No.10/2006-07 for inserting their names and by deleting the name of the petitioners. 29. The question arises that when this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has passed the order in W.P.(C) No.3063 of 2003 dated 03.07.2003 directing the aggrieved parties to approach before the competent court of civil jurisdiction, then what led the Deputy Collector Land Reforms in passing the order in Misc. Appeal Case No.10/2006-07 dated 05.07.2007 by making insertion of the name of private respondents and deletion of the name of the petitioners. 30. This Court, considering the order passed by the High Court in W.P.(C) No.3063 of 2003, which although has been taken note by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms in the order, has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing such direction. 31. The petitioners, have questioned that order by approaching the Deputy Commissioner, wherein, the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla vide order dated 07.11.2012 has expressed the view of relegating the parties before the competent court of civil jurisdiction by considering the settled position of law to the effect that entry made in the revenue records neither establishes nor extinguishes the right of the parties as also by taking into consideration the order passed by the High Court in W.P.(C) No.3063 of 2003. But, the Deputy Commissioner has failed to consider that when there is specific direction/observation by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India passed in W.P.(C) No.3063 of 2003 by granting liberty to the parties to approach before the court of competent jurisdiction and giving goby to the said order, the Deputy Collector Land Reforms has passed the order in Misc. Appeal Case No.10/2006-07 dated 05.07.2007, which ought to have taken into consideration by the Deputy Commissioner concerned by quashing and setting aside the order, reason being that the order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms ought to have been treated to be an order passed sitting upon the order dated 03.07.2003 passed in W.P.(C) No.3063 of 2003 by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, having not done so, according to the considered view of this Court, gross infirmity has been committed by the Deputy Commissioner in passing the aforesaid order in Case No.24/2007-08 dated 07.11.2012. 32. Therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, being in the teeth of the order passed by the writ Court, is not held to be sustainable. 33. This Court, on the basis of the discussion made hereinabove, is of the view that the Deputy Collector Land Reform in entertaining the application filed on behalf of the private respondents has committed gross illegality, reason being that, when this Court has passed the order on 03.07.2003 in W.P.(C) No.3063 of 2003, such application ought not to have been entertained and it should have been dismissed at the threshold. Further, the Deputy Commissioner, has also committed gross illegality in not quashing the order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reform in Misc. Appeal Case No.10/2006-07 dated 05.07.2007, while exercising the power of appellate authority, which according to the considered view of this Court ought to have been considered by taking such decision, in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3063 of 2003 dated 03.07.2003. 34. Therefore, both, the Deputy Collector Land Reform and the concerned Deputy Commissioner, while passing the impugned orders dated 05.07.2007 in Misc. Appeal Case No.10/2006-07 and 07.11.2012 in Case No.24/2007-08 respectively, have committed gross error. Although, the Deputy Commissioner, while taking the view that the entry made in the revenue record neither creates nor extinguishes any right and title which led the Deputy Commissioner to relegate the parties to approach before the competent court of civil jurisdiction, while doing so, he is correct but he ought to have quashed the order dated 05.07.2007 passed in Misc. Appeal Case No.10/2006-07 by the Deputy Collector Land Reform, otherwise the aforesaid order will create prejudice to the petitioners, if any civil suit will be filed by them. Appeal Case No.10/2006-07 by the Deputy Collector Land Reform, otherwise the aforesaid order will create prejudice to the petitioners, if any civil suit will be filed by them. More-so, the Deputy Commissioner also ought to have taken into consideration the infirmity in the order dated 05.07.2007 passed in Misc. Appeal Case No.10/2006-07 by the Deputy Collector Land Reform in entertaining the aforesaid application which is nothing but sitting over upon the order dated 03.07.2003 passed in W.P.(C) No.3063 of 2003 by the High Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 35. Accordingly, the order passed by the Deputy Collector Land Reform, Gumla in Misc. Appeal Case No.10/2006-07 dated 05.07.2007 and order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gumla in Case No.24/2007-08 dated 07.11.2012 are hereby, quashed and set aside. However, since the writ Court has already passed an observation in the order dated 03.07.2003 passed in W.P.(C) No.3063 of 2003 to the effect by granting liberty to the parties aggrieved to approach before the court of competent jurisdiction, therefore, there is no requirement to pass a fresh direction in this regard. 36. In view thereof, the instant petition stands allowed. 37. In consequence thereof, pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of.