JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents not to use the petitioner’s land appertaining to Khata No. 1/44, Plot No. 68/142, Mouza-Bela Tand, Old Ward No. 7, New Ward No. 14, P.S-Koderma (now Tilaiya), P.S No. 246, District-Koderma, measuring an area of 08 Decimals (out of total area of 16 Decimals) [hereinafter referred as ‘the said land’] without lawfully acquiring the same as the said land was purchased by her husband-Late Balkrishan Prasad by virtue of registered sale deed No. 3515 dated 05.05.1993, mutation of which was done vide order dated 04.07.1994 passed in Mutation Case No. 243(II) of 1994-95. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said land measuring a total area of 16 Decimals was settled by the then landlord in favour of one Jagarnath Ram, son of Jodhan Ram by way of Hukumnama in the year 1925 and subsequently the said settlee sold the same to Sarojani Wasini Biswas by way of registered sale deed dated 30.03.1951. After the death of Sarojani Wasini Biswas, her husband, namely, Lalit Mohan Biswas inherited the said land who further sold the same to Manju Devi Jain vide registered sale deed dated 18.06.1980. Thereafter, out of total 16 Decimals land, 8 Decimals of land was sold by Manju Devi Jain to the petitioner’s husband, namely, Bal Krishan Prasad by way of registered sale deed dated 05.05.1993 and Jamabandi of the said land was opened in his name in Register-II vide Mutation Case No. 243(II) of 1994-95 and he also paid the due rent of the said land for the year 1982-83 to 1994-95. However, the Circle Officer, Koderma stopped issuing rent receipt after 1994-95 and in the meantime, the petitioner’s husband died. 3. In such circumstance, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 374 of 2018 before this Court for issuance of rent receipt with respect to the said land. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.06.2019 giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction for adjudication of her title, if she so wishes. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner approached the respondent No.3 as well as the Circle Officer, Koderma with all the relevant documents. Thereafter, the Circle Officer, Koderma issued rent receipts from the year 1994-95 to 2022-23 on different dates. 4. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner approached the respondent No.3 as well as the Circle Officer, Koderma with all the relevant documents. Thereafter, the Circle Officer, Koderma issued rent receipts from the year 1994-95 to 2022-23 on different dates. 4. However, the respondent-Jhumritilaiya Nagar Parishad subsequently, in the garb of beautification of a pond situated in Indrapuri Mohalla (Ward No. 25), started demolishing the boundary wall constructed by the petitioner over the said land as well as the boundary wall constructed by the adjacent raiyats over the Plot No. 68/225. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner along with other adjacent raiyats filed a joint representation before the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.3 on 13.11.2018 & 07.03.2019 respectively. The petitioner again filed a representation before the respondent No.2 on 28.01.2021, however, nothing was done. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the action of the respondents in interfering with the possession of the petitioner over her residential land without taking recourse of the provisions of land acquisition is wholly illegal. Once the rent receipts for the said land were issued in the name of the petitioner/her husband (since deceased), they got the status of the raiyat of the same and hence she cannot be evicted from the said land without lawful acquisition and payment of compensation in lieu thereof. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand submits that there is a pond situated within the jurisdiction of Jhumritilaiya Nagar Parishad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Parishad’) within Ward No. 7 on ‘’Gair Majarua’’ land which needed protection and hence the said Parishad has demarcated the periphery of the pond for its beautification as well as for the benefit of the people residing in the locality. A direction was issued by the respondent No.3 vide order dated 29.09.2011 whereby registration of sale and purchase as well as mutation and issuance of rent receipts of ‘Gair Majarua’ land were stopped. The lands mentioned in the order dated 29.09.2011 also includes the land in question. 7. A direction was issued by the respondent No.3 vide order dated 29.09.2011 whereby registration of sale and purchase as well as mutation and issuance of rent receipts of ‘Gair Majarua’ land were stopped. The lands mentioned in the order dated 29.09.2011 also includes the land in question. 7. It is further submitted that in exercise of power conferred under Section 22-A (Bihar Amendment) of the Registration Act, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1908’], a notification vide memo No. 1132 dated 26.08.2015 was issued under the signature of the Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Government of Jharkhand stating that with effect from the date of the said notification, the Hon’ble Governor of Jharkhand declared registration of sale deeds relating to any government land (Kaiser-e-Hind land/Gair Majarua Aam land/Gair Majarua Khas land/forest land/acquired or transferred land for different departments and government land of other categories etc.) against the public policy under Section 22A of the Act, 1908 in relation to which communication was earlier made by the said department as well as by Divisional Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or their authorized person to the registering authority. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-Nagar Parishad submits that in view of Section 126 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2011’] as well as the resolution as contained in memo No. 4125 dated 10.10.2013 issued by the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, the movable and immovable properties and all interest of whatsoever nature or kind therein situated within the limits of a municipal area including public tanks, streams, reservoirs and wells shall vest in the Municipality. The creation of Jamabandi is only for the purpose of collection of land revenue and it does not confer any right, title and interest over the property. The petitioner was never in possession of the said land. In fact, Parishad has not touched any raiyati land, rather the work of beautification of the pond situated on the government land has been done and hence there is no question of acquisition of the same. The said land is non-transferable and hence the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the sale deed is not tenable. In fact, Parishad has not touched any raiyati land, rather the work of beautification of the pond situated on the government land has been done and hence there is no question of acquisition of the same. The said land is non-transferable and hence the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the sale deed is not tenable. Since the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to approach the competent Civil Court for adjudication of her title over the said land, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The petitioner has sought direction upon the respondents not to use the said land without lawful acquisition of the same. 10. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent-Nagar Parishad has arbitrarily taken possession of the said land of the petitioner on the pretext of beautification of a pond situated within Ward No. 25. It has been claimed that the said land is a raiyati one and the petitioner/her predecessors-in-interest have been in long possession of the same on payment of the rent to the Government. 11. On the other hand, the respondents have contended that the nature of the said land is ‘Gair Majarua’ which has been used for beautification of a pond. It has further been contended that the petitioner has no right, title and interest over the said land. 12. To appreciate the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the documents brought on record by the petitioner relating to her right, title and interest as well as possession over the said land. It is evident that the petitioner/her predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the said land since long after purchasing the same through the registered sale deeds. The rent receipts for the said land have also been issued in their favour by the government. 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Nagar Parishad has put much emphasis on the order dated 29.09.2011 issued by the respondent No.3 whereby registration, mutation as well as issuance of rent receipt for certain land including the land in question have been prohibited. However, this Court, in the case of Tarkeshwar Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Nagar Parishad has put much emphasis on the order dated 29.09.2011 issued by the respondent No.3 whereby registration, mutation as well as issuance of rent receipt for certain land including the land in question have been prohibited. However, this Court, in the case of Tarkeshwar Prasad Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 4089 of 2013) has held that the restriction imposed by the District Registrar on registration of sale deeds is against the provisions as contained in Section 74 of the Act, 1908. The said observation made in W.P.(C) No. 4089/2013 has been affirmed by learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vs. Tarkeshwar Prasad (L.P.A No. 467 of 2014). 14. Reliance has also been placed on Section 126 of the Act, 2011 which provides the details of categories in relation to movable and immovable properties situated within the limits of a municipal area which shall vest in the municipality and in view of Clause (b) of the said Section, all the public tanks, streams, reservoirs and wells shall vest in the Municipality. Thus, the condition precedent for vesting of any property in the Municipality is that the same must be public property. However, in the case in hand, the respondents have failed to bring sufficient materials on record to show that the said land is a public land. On the contrary, the petitioner has brought on record the copies of registered sale deeds, relevant extract of mutation register showing mutation of the land done on 04.07.1994 concerning sale-deed No. 3515 dated 05.05.1993, relevant part of Register-II as well as the rent receipts issued by the Circle Officer, Koderma in the name of her husband and his predecessors-in-interest which shows lawful right, interest as well as long possession of the petitioner’s husband/his predecessors-in-interest over the said land. Moreover, it has been stated in the report of the Anchal Amin dated 22.02.2021 submitted to the Circle Officer, Koderma that as per the survey map, the said land is not a pond, rather it is a low land. As such, the respondent-Nagar Parishad cannot claim that the said land has vested in the Municipality in view of Section 126 of the Act, 2011. 15. As such, the respondent-Nagar Parishad cannot claim that the said land has vested in the Municipality in view of Section 126 of the Act, 2011. 15. It is evident that after passing of the order dated 27.06.2019 in W.P.(C) No. 374 of 2018, the Circle Officer, Koderma has issued rent receipts in favour of the petitioner’s husband from the year 1994-95 to 2019-20 and has continued to issue the same for the year 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23 which suggests that the possession of the petitioner/her husband over the said land has been duly acknowledged by the respondent authorities. 16. Pursuant to the order dated 16.05.2023 passed in this case, a report was prepared by the Anchal Amin after measuring the said land, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-D to the counter affidavit dated 18.07.2023 filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. On perusal of the said report, it would be evident that entire 8 (eight) Decimals land of the petitioner has been used by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 for construction of PCC Road, Ghat, installation of Paver Blocks etc. This Court is thus of the view that the respondent-Nagar Parishad has illegally used the said land without payment of due compensation to the petitioner. 17. Accordingly, the respondent-Parishad is directed to determine and pay compensation to the petitioner for the said land in terms with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act, 2013 within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 18. The present writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid direction.