ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The State of Jharkhand has challenged the direction contained in order dated 31st July 2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2667 of 2016. 2. By the said order, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi was directed to examine the matter relating to Jamabandi created in the name of the writ petitioner who is respondent before us. 3. W.P.(C) No.2667 of 2016 was filed by Md. Alimuddin challenging the order dated 1st February 2016 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 37 of 2011 by which the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi dated 4th March 2011 in Misc. Case No. 03/97/TR 52/02-03 was affirmed. 4. The writ petitioner who is the respondent before us was aggrieved of the aforesaid orders as Jamabandi created in his name in respect to 12.23 acres of land comprised under Khata No. 194 at village Simalia, PS-Ratu, PS No.139 in District Ranchi was cancelled. The respondent pleaded that the lands in question were recorded in R.S. Survey of 1935 as 'Gair Mazarua Khas' in the name of Thakur Mahendra Nath Sahdeo. According to the respondent, by a Sada Hukumnama dated 5th March 1947 possession of the lands in question was handed over to him and Compensation Case No.18/1953-54 was started for rent fixation for the aforesaid lands. 5. As noticed above, by an order dated 4th March 2011 the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi cancelled Jamabandi in favour of the respondent and this order was affirmed by the appellate authority. 6. The writ Court after having appreciated the materials on record held as under : “6. ........So far as the appellate order is concerned, which is also under challenge in this writ petition, the legal position is not in dispute that the appellate order is not required to give the detailed reasoning, but brief reasoning is required to be stipulated in the decision, so that the mind of the appellate tribunal authority be reflected from bare reading of the order. In the light of that position of law, the order passed by the appellate authority has been scrutinized by this Court and it transpires from the order passed by the appellate authority that no reasoning of concurring with the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi has been assigned, but since this Court has affirmed the view taken by the Deputy Commissioner, therefore, is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority. Now, the question is of the substantial justice, in this case, the petitioner has brought on record the recent receipt in order to establish his case, said to have been issued by the ex-landlord as also the order passed in the Compensation Case No. 18 of 1953-54, therefore, and if the petitioner could not have been able to produce the document before the authority at the time of initiation of the proceeding under Section 4 (h) of the Act, 1950, he cannot be deprived from proper adjudication of his claim on the ground of non-production of the said document, if the said document will not be considered, it will lead to miscarriage of justice, therefore, this Court is of the view that although the order passed by the original as also the appellate authority needs no interference on the basis of the reason stated hereinabove, but, simultaneously, since the petitioner has put his reliance upon the rent receipt, as contained in Annexure-1, and an order, passed in Compensation Case No. 18/53-54, these two documents have not been disputed by the State Respondents in the counter affidavit, therefore, this Court is of the view that the matter requires consideration afresh. 7. In view thereof, the matter is remitted before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, who will pass a fresh order and while doing so, he will only examine the genuineness of the rent receipt, as has been 7 annexed at Annexure-1 and the rent fixation made under Compensation Case No. 18/53-54 by getting it scrutinized from the relevant records and take a decision afresh. The order in this regard shall be passed by the Deputy Commissioner, within a reasonable period, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.” 7. First of all, we would clarify that the order dated 1st February 2016 passed in Misc. Appeal No.37 of 2011 by the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi and the order dated 4th March 2011 passed in Misc. Case No.03/97/TR 52/02-03 by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi have been quashed by the writ Court. This clarification is needed for the reason that a plea has been raised that the writ Court's order does not specifically say anything in this regard. 8. Mr. Case No.03/97/TR 52/02-03 by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi have been quashed by the writ Court. This clarification is needed for the reason that a plea has been raised that the writ Court's order does not specifically say anything in this regard. 8. Mr. Anup Kumar Agrawal, the learned State counsel would urge that remand to an authority which has already taken a decision is not proper and all that the writ Court should have done was to decide the matter itself. 9. This Letters Patent Appeal was filed on 8th January 2020 with defects and for a considerable time was not prosecuted by the State of Jharkhand. The matter was listed before the Court for the first time on 5th April 2022 when on account of inability of one of the Hon'ble Judges the matter was assigned to DB-III. 10. No doubt the writ Court could have determined the case itself instead of remanding the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi but this proposition comes with a Caveat that only where the record is sufficient to enable the Court to pronounce judgment. In the matters relating to right, title and ownership of land the writ Court would refrain from expressing any opinion on the rival claims. The Revenue Authority which has the benefit of perusing the original land records and other documents is definitely the proper authority to comment upon genuineness or otherwise of the documents produced by a party to the litigation. As would appear from a glance at the appellate order no reason has been given why the findings recorded by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi have been affirmed, and there is no discussion as regards the various documentary evidence including rent receipts produced by the respondent. 11. For the above reasons, we find no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal and, accordingly, L.P.A No.16 of 2020 is dismissed. However, three months' further time is granted to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to comply with the writ Court's order in accordance with law, keeping in mind various judgments of this Court on the subject. 12. We further indicate that the respondent shall be afforded sufficient opportunity to put forth his case by issuing a notice to him, within next 15 days on receipt of a copy of this order.