JUDGMENT : I.A. No.5235 of 2023 The instant interlocutory application has been filed for substitution of the name of legal heirs of sole petitioner as mentioned in paragraph 1(i) of the interlocutory application, who died during the pendency of the writ petition. Learned counsel appearing for the State as also learned counsel for private respondent are having no objection if the prayer made in the instant interlocutory application is allowed. Considering the same and taking into consideration the reason assigned in the interlocutory application, the same is hereby allowed. I.A. No.5235 of 2023 stands disposed of. Office is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the cause title of the writ petition. W.P.(C) No.4490 of 2015 The writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein notice as contained in Memo No.4138 dated 02.09.2015 passed by the Circle Officer, Town, Ranchi has been assailed by which notice has been issued for restoration of land in favour of Respondent No.9, namely, Kamal Oraon, in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3130 of 2013 as well as order passed by the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi. 2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order passed by the Special Officer in S.A.R. Case No.179/2009-10 which has been assailed by filing appeal being S.A.R. Appeal Case No.22 R 15/2010-11 and the appellate authority vide order dated 26.12.2011 has quashed the order passed by the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi dated 05.04.2010 in S.A.R. Case No.179/2009-10 and has remitted the matter before the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi for passing a fresh order, in accordance with law within the period of three months. 3. 3. The grievance of the petitioner that even though the appellate authority has quashed the order passed by the Special Officer, Schedule Area Regulation, Ranchi dated 05.04.2010 but in complete defiance of the same, the Circle Officer has issued notice on 02.09.2015 as contained in Memo No.4138 in the light of the order passed by the Special Officer, S.A.R. dated 05.04.2010 in S.A.R. Case No.179/2009-10, therefore, the instant writ petition has been filed inter alia on the ground that once the order passed by the Special Officer, S.A.R. has been quashed and set aside by remitting the matter back before the Special Officer, S.A.R., where the matter is again to be re-adjudicated for the purpose of passing a fresh order, there was no reason to issue notice for restoration of the land as has been issued by the Circle Officer vide notice dated 02.09.2015. It has been contended that during the pendency of the writ petition the aforesaid notice has been recalled. 4. Mr. Aashish Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, has submitted by referring to another interlocutory application being I.A. No.5242 of 2023, whereby and whereunder the leave has been sought for to allow the writ petitioner to challenge the entire proceeding instituted on the strength of application filed under Section 71A of the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 being S.A.R. Case No.179/2009-10. It has been contended by placing the instant interlocutory application that the entire proceeding arising out of S.A.R. Case No.179/2009-10 is not sustainable in the eyes of law in view of the fact that the land in question having construction over there prior to coming into effect of the Schedule Area Regulation, 1969 and, hence, the provision of C.N.T. Act, is not applicable. 5. Serious objection has been raised on behalf of the State and the learned counsel appearing for the private respondent that since the appellate authority has quashed the order passed by the Special Officer, S.A.R. and revived the case for the purpose of passing a fresh order but the writ petitioner, even though has not challenged the order passed by the appellate authority, is now seeking a direction from this Court for amendment so as to quash the entire proceeding initiated as under S.A.R. Case No.179/2009-10 on the ground that the land in question is raiyati. It has been contended that whether the land is raiyati or not or any construction said to be substantial construction existing prior to coming into effect of the Schedule Area Regulation Act, 1969 can be considered by the adjudicatory authority if the evidence will be brought to the notice of the concerned authority so as to come to the conclusion that the construction lying over the land in question is prior to coming into effect of the Schedule Area Regulation Act, 1969 and in that view of the matter, if the matter has been remitted before the Special Officer, S.A.R., then it will be just and proper for the writ petitioner to raise the said issue before the authority for its adjudication. It has been contended that merely on the ground of averment that the land in question is having substantial structure existing prior to coming into effect of the Schedule Area Regulation Act, 1969 is not sufficient cause to quash entire proceeding. 6. This Court, before proceeding to consider the submission made on behalf of the writ petitioner, is of the view that the prayer which has been made by filing interlocutory application being I.A. No.1447 of 2023, on behalf of Respondent No.14 for his substitution through legal heirs, is required to be filed by the petitioner herein, reason being that as per the procedure laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure, as under Order 22 the duty of the defendant is to bring to the notice of the court/party about the demise of defendant or the plaintiff so that appropriate application may be filed on behalf of the plaintiff. It has been informed that the Respondent No.14 was the applicant/petitioner before the Special Officer, S.A.R. and an application for substitution of Respondent No.14 through his legal heirs has already been filed before the Special Officer, S.A.R. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the interlocutory application being I.A. No.1447 of 2023 having been filed on behalf of Respondent No.14 is not required to be dealt with in this proceeding. 7. 7. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the admitted fact herein is that the writ petitioner being aggrieved with the order passed by the Special Officer, S.A.R. dated 05.04.2010 in S.A.R. Case No.179/2009-10, has challenged the same by filing appeal being S.A.R. Appeal Case No.22 R 15/2010-11 wherein the aforesaid order has been quashed and the matter has been remitted before the original authority and now the proceeding is lying pending before the Special Officer, S.A.R. The writ petitioner, in the meanwhile, has sought for a direction for allowing the amendment for quashing of the entire proceeding as is evident from the interlocutory application being I.A. No.5242 of 2023 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but according to the considered view of this Court, the aforesaid prayer is not fit to be allowed due to the following reasons :- (i) The appellate order which has been passed in the appeal filed by the writ petitioner whereby and whereunder the order passed by the Special Officer, S.A.S. has been quashed and set aside while remitting the matter before the Special Officer, S.A.R., for passing order afresh within the stipulated period of three months, meaning thereby, now the proceeding is lying pending after revival of the original proceeding, before the Special Officer, S.A.R. (ii) The writ petitioner has not challenged the order passed by the appellate authority, as to why and on what ground after quashing of the order passed by the Special Officer, S.A.R. the matter was remitted before the Special Officer, S.A.R. for passing a fresh order. (iii) The order passed by the appellate authority once accepted, it is not available for the writ petitioner to question the entire proceeding, rather, it is incumbent upon the writ petitioner to raise the available ground before the Special Officer, S.A.R. for its consideration. 8. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the interlocutory application being I.A. No.5242 of 2023 is not worth to be considered, accordingly rejected. However, it is left open upon the petitioner to raise the issue before the Special Officer, S.A.R. where the matter is pending after remand by the appellate authority. 9. 8. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the interlocutory application being I.A. No.5242 of 2023 is not worth to be considered, accordingly rejected. However, it is left open upon the petitioner to raise the issue before the Special Officer, S.A.R. where the matter is pending after remand by the appellate authority. 9. So far as the main grievance of the writ petitioner wherein notice as contained in Memo No.4138 dated 02.09.2015 passed by the Circle Officer, Town, Ranchi has been challenged, but as has been informed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the aforesaid notice itself has been recalled by the Circle Officer, therefore, substantial prayer is no more in existence. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is left open upon the writ petitioner to raise all available points before the Special Officer, S.A.R. for its adjudication in accordance with law.