JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J. The Interlocutory Applications filed for condoning the delay in preferring the present Letters Patent Appeals are taken up for hearing. 2. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances in these cases and also after going through the cause shown in these Interlocutory Applications seeking condonation of delay, we find sufficient ground to condone the delay in preferring the present Letters Patent Appeals and, accordingly, I.A. No. 7250 of 2023 in L.P.A. No. 318 of 2022, I.A No. 7246 of 2023 in L.P.A. No. 319 of 2022, I.A. No. 7248 of 2023 in L.P.A No. 320 of 2022, I.A No. 7247 of 2023 in L.P.A No. 369 of 2022 and I.A No. 7249 of 2023 in L.P.A No. 406 of 2022 are allowed. 3. In this batch of the Letters Patent Appeals, the State of Jharkhand seeks to challenge the orders passed by the writ Court on the ground that the disputed questions of fact as regards the right, title and interest in a landed property cannot be adjudicated in a writ proceeding and, that too, when serious allegations of forgery and fabrication of the records are made. In LPA No. 231 of 2022, the Chintamani Trust is aggrieved by the writ Court’s interference with the order dated 22nd October 2012 passed in Misc. Case No. 50(R)-15 of 2009-10 whereby the jamabandi opened in the name of Surajdeo Singh was cancelled. The order dated 18th April 2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 7595 of 2012 filed by Surajdeo Singh is not put to challenge by the State of Jharkhand and, for this reason, Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel for the said respondent would submit that the State authorities must be held to have admitted the claim of Surajdeo Singh. He has made other independent submissions on behalf of this respondent to oppose this Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Chintamani Trust, which we shall deal with separately. 4. Before we proceed further, this requires a mention that the private respondents had approached the writ Court with a grievance that the State-authorities were not accepting rent and issuing rent receipts to them or that the jamabandi in their name was cancelled in a proceeding started by the statutory authority, or a proceeding under section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 was started against them. We may further indicate that all these cases and other litigations which came to this Court involved the lands comprised under Khata No.383 of Khewat No.2 at village Pundag in the capital city at Ranchi. For the stake of convenience, a few details concerning these Letters Patent Appeals are catalogued in a tabular chart hereinbelow: Sl.No. Writ Petition Land description Order under challenge/ relief sought 1 WP(C) No. 5365/2014 Khata No.383, Khewat No.2, Plot No. 496, area one acre and Plot No. 718, area 5 acres in village Pundag Misc. Case No. 07/2010-11, T.R. No. 94/2010-11 2 WP(C) No. 7595/2012 Khata No.383, Plot No.496, Khewat No. 2, area of 7 acres in village Pundag Order dated 22.10.2012 in Misc. Case No.50R15/2009-10 3 WP(C) No. 3878/2012 Khata No.383, Plot Nos. 303, 1722, 1723 & 1724, area of 2.90 acres of Mauza Pundag For the rent receipts 4 WP(C) No. 1262/2010 Khata No.383, Plot No.260, Sub-plot No. 260/A-3, area of 3.75 Kathas in village Pundag For mutation and rent receipts 5 WP(C) No. 7967/2012 Khata No.383, Plot No.260, area of 9.75 decimals in village Pundag Memo No.1203 dated 12.07.2004/ issuance of rent receipt 6 WP(C) No. 7972/2012 Khata No.383, Plot No.260, area of 10 decimals in village Pundag Memo No.1203 dated 12.07.2004/ issuance of rent receipt L.P.A. No. 318 of 2022 5. Md. Julfan Ansari claiming right, title and interest over the land admeasuring about one acre comprised in Plot No. 496 and about five acres in Plot No.718 in Khata No. 383 of Khewat No. 2 situated at village Pundag (Thana No. 228) in the district of Ranchi filed W.P.(C) No.5365 of 2014, to challenge the proceedings in Misc. Case No. 7/2010-11 corresponding to T.R. No. 94/2010-11 on the ground that the State of Jharkhand has no authority to reopen the rights of his father adjudicated in the previous judicial proceedings. According to him, Md. Muslim Ansari who was his father claimed right, title and interest over the aforementioned lands and this Court in W.P. (C) No. 2496 of 2002 issued a direction to the Additional Collector to take a decision after calling an enquiry through the Land Reforms Deputy Collector at Ranchi. In pursuance of the writ Court’s direction, the Additional Collector passed an adverse order on 12th December 2005 which was put to challenge by his father in W.P.(C) No. 1119 of 2006. In pursuance of the writ Court’s direction, the Additional Collector passed an adverse order on 12th December 2005 which was put to challenge by his father in W.P.(C) No. 1119 of 2006. His father set up a plea that a registered Kabuliat was executed by Sheikh Sahamat and Sheikh Ajmat on 9th January 1947 and their names were recorded in Register-II vide Case No. 210 R 8 (II)/1983-84. However, it was found that the subject lands (hereinafter referred to as subject property-I) were recorded in the name of Ramdas Sinha, son of Sahdeo Narayan Sinha, vide Case No. 4 R 8 (II) of 1983-84 and the said lands fell under village Hutar of Burmu Anchal. For that reason, the Additional Collector formed an opinion that the jamabandi created in the name of Sheikh Sahamat and Sheikh Ajmat was doubtful. Before the writ Court, the original records pertaining to Case No. 4 R 8 (II) of 1983-84 were not produced and, therefore, the writ Court was constrained to interfere with the order passed by the Additional Collector. The order passed in W.P.(C) No. 1119 of 2006 was upheld by the Letters Patent Court in L.P.A. No. 474 of 2006 and was affirmed up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 8279 of 2009. 6. Still, the State of Jharkhand initiated a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950 with respect to the subject property-I comprised in Plot Nos. 496 and 718 of Khata No. 383 in Khewat No. 2 at village Pundag. The writ Court took note of the previous judicial proceedings pursuant to which rent receipts were issued to Md. Julfan Ansari, and came to a conclusion that the initiation of 4(h) proceedings against Md. Julfan Ansari was illegal and issued a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to ensure that the rent receipts are issued in his favor within 30 days. 7. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, the learned State counsel refers to the certified copy of the original records which were produced before the writ Court and submits that the returns in respect of Plot Nos. 496 and 718 of Khata No. 383 within Khewat No. 2 at village Pundag were submitted in the name of six other persons and not in the name of the father of Muslim Ansari or Sheikh Sahamat or Shiekh Ajmat. 8. 496 and 718 of Khata No. 383 within Khewat No. 2 at village Pundag were submitted in the name of six other persons and not in the name of the father of Muslim Ansari or Sheikh Sahamat or Shiekh Ajmat. 8. However, in W.P.(C) No. 5365 of 2014, the writ Court held as under: “As such, this court is of opinion that once the matter has already been settled up to the Supreme Court, it would not be proper for the learned Single Judge to pass an order afresh, except that the order of the Single Judge passed in W.P. (C) No. 119/2006 has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as such, revenue authority has no authority under the law to pass any order putting hindrance in peaceful possession of the petitioner. Since considering the same, that once the order of cancellation of jamabandi has been quashed by the this Court, affirmed by the Division Bench and upheld by Hon'ble the Apex Court, the initiation of proceeding under Section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Coordinate Bench has already granted liberty to the State in previous Writ Petition vide W.P.(C) No.1119 of 2006 that State may take legal recourse before the competent court of law, as such, the entire proceeding requires to be quashed. Accordingly, the entire proceeding of Misc. Case No.7/2010-11, T.R. No.94/2010-11 (Annexure-16) pending in the Court of Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Sadar, Ranchi is hereby quashed. However, the respondent(s)- State is duty bound to issue rent receipt and further the State cannot proceed against the petitioner without declaration of title of land, in question from the competent Court having civil jurisdiction, as directed by the Hon'ble Court in terms of order dated 09.08.2006 passed in W.P.(C) No.1119 of 2006. Further, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi is directed to ensure that rent receipt must be issued in favour of the petitioner within a period of 30 days from today and no action can be taken by the State authorities until the competent court of civil jurisdiction declares that petitioner has no right over the land, in question. Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition stands allowed.” L.P.A. No. 319 of 2022 9. Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition stands allowed.” L.P.A. No. 319 of 2022 9. In W.P.(C) No. 3878 of 2012, Afjal Hussain who is now represented through his son set up a claim over the subject property-II comprised in Plot Nos. 1722, 303, 1723 and 1724 in Khata No.383 of Khewat No.2, measuring area about 2.90 acres, at village Pundag in the district of Ranchi. His stand was that on the basis of a registered Kabuliyat dated 27th April 1949 by ex-landlord Baralal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo the subject property-II came to his father Mian Jaan. According to Afjal Hussain, his father came in peaceful possession over the subject property-II and paid rent till the year 1984. Afjal Hussain placed reliance also on the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1119 of 2006 titled “Muslim @ Md. Muslim Ansari v. State of Jharkhand & Ors”, which is controverted by the State counsel on the basis of the returns filed by ex-landlord. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, the learned State Counsel would submit that the original records disclose that the returns in respect of Plot Nos. 1722, 303, 1723 and 1724 were never filed and the name of Mian Jaan Ali is not recorded thereunder. 10. Though, the writ Court recorded that there had been a series of other litigations in respect of the lands comprised under Khata No. 383 but issued a direction to the State authorities to issue rent receipts in favor of Afjal Hussain, brushing aside the stand of the State of Jharkhand that he had obtained rent receipts through fraudulent method. 11. In W.P.(C) No. 3878 of 2012, the writ Court held as under: “In the view of the Shanker Raju (Supra) and Kunhayammed (Supra), it appears to this court that the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench, affirmed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court and also affirmed by the Supreme Court of India, is binding upon the Circle Officer and the state authorities. It is also incumbent upon the State to adhere the same and under its Litigation Policy shall withdraw such order which has been passed by Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi without any basis, whereby Jamabandi has been shown to be suspicious pertaining to Khata no.-383, Mouza - Pundag, District – Ranchi without any valid reasons, to minimize the litigation and to prevent the multiplicity of writ petitions before this Hon'ble Court. Accordingly, all the three writ petitions are hereby allowed. The State authority are directed to issue rent receipts forthwith within a period of 30 days from today. The State shall not put any hindrance in peaceful possession of the petitioner or his successor in interest, with regard to the above mentioned land, unless the State obtains a decree in their favour by competent court of law.” L.P.A Nos. 320 of 2022, 369 of 2022 and L.P.A No. 406 of 2022 12. By a common order dated 21st February 2022, W.P.(C) No. 1262 of 2010, W.P.(C) No. 7967 of 2012 and W.P.(C) No. 7972 of 2012 were allowed in the following terms: “In all the three cases W.P. (C) No. 1262/2010, W.P. (C) No. 7967/2012 and W.P. (C) No. 7972/2012, petitioners namely, Dharmesh Singh, Lalita Devi and Fulwanti Devi have claimed their title on the basis of transfer made by Sk. Nazib. In W.P. (C) No. 1262/2010, the petitioner Dharmesh Singh has purchased 3.75 Kathas of land of Plot No. 260, being Sub-Plot No. 260/A/3 of Khata No. 383 situated at Village – Pundag, from one Asha Bai Kochar by virtue of registered sale deed dated 02.03.2002. Asha Bai Kochar has purchased 50 decimals of land of Plot No. 260, being Sub-Plot No. 260/A/3 of Khata No. 383 situated at Village – Pundag through a registered sale deed dated 15.03.1967 from Sk. Nazib and her name has been mutated vide Misc. Case No. 2R27 of 1977-78, which has been brought on record as Annexure-2, as such, the State authorities are duty bound to issue rent receipt in favour of petitioner. In W.P. (C) No. 7967/2012, the original writ petitioner Lalita Devi has died and she has been substituted by her legal heirs namely, (i) Satnarayan Prasad, son of Late Nand Lal Sah and husband of Late Lalita Devi, (ii) Umesh Prasad, (iii) Rajesh Prasad, (iv) Mukesh Prasad, (ii) to (iv) all sons of Satnarayan Prasad and Late Lalita Devi and (v) Rita, daughter of Satnarayan Prasad and Late Lalita Devi. Lalita Devi has purchased the land measuring 9¾ decimals from Sk. Nazib vide registered sale deed dated 05.11.1985 and thereafter, mutation order was passed vide Mutation Case No. 126R-27/93- 94 and rent receipt has been issued vide Annexure-6, as such, the State Authorities have no jurisdiction to stop the issuance of rent receipt causing, loss of revenue to the State. Lalita Devi has purchased the land measuring 9¾ decimals from Sk. Nazib vide registered sale deed dated 05.11.1985 and thereafter, mutation order was passed vide Mutation Case No. 126R-27/93- 94 and rent receipt has been issued vide Annexure-6, as such, the State Authorities have no jurisdiction to stop the issuance of rent receipt causing, loss of revenue to the State. So far W.P. (C) No. 7972/2012 is concerned, petitioner – Fulwanti Devi, wife of Laxman Ram has also purchased the land measuring 10 decimals from Sk. Nazib vide registered sale deed dated 05.11.1985 and subsequent thereto her mutation case was also allowed vide Mutation Case No. 124R27/1993-94, as such, the State authorities are duty bound to issue rent receipt in favour of petitioner. Accordingly, all the three writ petitions are hereby allowed as so far title and possession of Sk. Nazib remains undisputed and unaffected. The State authority are directed to issue rent receipts forthwith within a period of 30 days from today and rent receipt shall be issued from the date petitioners claimed the land till today and in future without any interruption till any order pass by the appellate court or any other competent court of law.” 13. In W.P.(C) No. 1262 of 2010, Dharmesh Singh laid a claim over the subject property-III which measures about 1.75 acres in Plot No. 260 of Khata No. 383 under Khewat No.2 at village Pundag. The claim put forth by Dharmesh Singh was that the aforementioned land was settled in favor of Sheikh Nazib by virtue of Hukumnama dated 1st June 1945 by ex-landlord followed by the delivery of possession and the rent receipt in his favor. 14. In W.P.(C) No. 7967 of 2012, the claim put forth by Lalita Devi was that she purchased 9¾ decimals of land in Plot No. 260 under Khata No. 383 (subject property-IV) at village Pundag from Sk. Nazib through a registered sale deed dated 5th November 1985 and the rent receipts have been issued in her favor till the year 1994-95. 15. In W.P.(C) No. 7972 of 2012, Fulwanti Devi pleaded that she purchased 10 decimals of land in Plot No. 260 under Khata No. 383 (subject property-V) at village Pundag through a registered sale deed dated 5th November 1985. Later, she applied for mutation vide Mutation Case No. 124R27/93-94 and the rent receipts were issued in her favor. 16. Mr. 15. In W.P.(C) No. 7972 of 2012, Fulwanti Devi pleaded that she purchased 10 decimals of land in Plot No. 260 under Khata No. 383 (subject property-V) at village Pundag through a registered sale deed dated 5th November 1985. Later, she applied for mutation vide Mutation Case No. 124R27/93-94 and the rent receipts were issued in her favor. 16. Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, the learned State counsel submits that no return was filed with respect to the aforementioned subject properties comprised under Plot No. 260 in Khata No. 383 of Khewat No.2. L.P.A. No. 231 of 2022 17. Seeking a direction upon the State-respondents to issue rent receipts in respect of the subject property-VI measuring about 7 acres appertaining to Plot No. 496 in Khata No. 383 of Khewat No. 2 at village Pundag, the respondent-Surajdeo Singh approached the writ Court in W.P.(C) No. 4484 of 2007. The case pleaded by him was that after the death of his father in the year 2004, the authorities of the State of Jharkhand refused to accept rent and issue rent receipts to him. Constrained, he approached the writ Court in WP(C) No. 4484 of 2007. The writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 4th February 2008 with a direction to the respondent-authorities to issue rent receipts to him on the ground that they could not have arbitrarily refused to accept the rent and grant the rent receipts, until the jamabandi is found illegal or cancelled by the competent Court/authority by following the procedure established in law. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi started a proceeding vide Misc. Case No. 50R 15 of 2009-10 and the demand opened in his name was cancelled by an order dated 22nd October 2012. That was the order put to challenge in 2nd round by filing W.P.(C) No. 7595 of 2012. 18. In 2nd round, Surajdeo Singh pleaded that the subject property-VI was settled by ex-landlord in the year 1940 in favor of his father who was recognized as the tenant and the returns were filed by ex-intermediary showing the name of his father thereunder. He further pleaded that Form-M was prepared and jamabandi was opened in the name of his father and, that, in Compensation Case No. 5 of 1952-53 the name of his father was recorded as raiyat in respect of the subject property-VI comprised under Plot No. 496 in Khata No. 383. He further pleaded that Form-M was prepared and jamabandi was opened in the name of his father and, that, in Compensation Case No. 5 of 1952-53 the name of his father was recorded as raiyat in respect of the subject property-VI comprised under Plot No. 496 in Khata No. 383. On the other hand, the Chintamani Trust pleaded that a proceeding under the Bihar Land Reforms Act was started vide Case No. 1 of 1955-56 and that proceeding ended in its favor holding that the trust created by Baralal Kandarp Nath Shahdeo was genuine. In the counter-affidavit filed before the writ Court, the Chintamani Trust disputed the possession of the respondent herein over the subject property-VI. This has also come on the record that ex-landlord created Chintamani Trust through a registered Deed of Trust dated 20th August 1948 for performing puja, religious ceremonies and gave irrevocable grant by appointing trustees with respect to the subject property-VI and other properties. 19. By an order dated 18th April 2022, the writ Court interfered with the order dated 22nd October 2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Misc. Case No. 50(R) 15 of 2009-10 and made an observation that if Chintamani Trust has any claim over the subject property-VI it may approach the competent Court of civil jurisdiction. 20. In WP(C) No. 7595 of 2012, the writ Court held as under: “Considering the rival submissions of the parties and looking into facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that pursuant to the order dated 04.02.2008, passed in W.P.(C) No.4484 of 2007, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi should not have entertained such application of respondent no. 4, Chintamani Trust, which has been registered as Miscellaneous Case No.50 R 15 of 2009-10. If Chintamani Trust has any objection with regard to petitioner's title, Chintamani Trust is free to file suit before the competent court of law. Accordingly, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi dated 22.10.2012, passed in Miscellaneous Case No.50 R 15 of 2009-10 is hereby quashed and set aside, as a large number of cases have already been decided with regard to transfer of land by Chintamani Trust. The Revenue Authority, State of Jharkhand is directed to issue rent receipt in favour of the petitioner or his successor-in-interest till any order from competent court of civil jurisdiction is passed holding decree in favour of Chintamani Trust. The Revenue Authority, State of Jharkhand is directed to issue rent receipt in favour of the petitioner or his successor-in-interest till any order from competent court of civil jurisdiction is passed holding decree in favour of Chintamani Trust. The instant writ petition is hereby allowed.” 21. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, the learned counsel submits that the Chintamani Trust was created only for the purpose of offering prayers and performing other religious ceremonies and it continues to receive Annuity amount and it has no locus to challenge the right, title and interest claimed by Surajdeo Singh over the subject property-VI. The learned counsel further submits that a long running jamabandi cannot be cancelled save and except by filing a suit in the competent Court of civil jurisdiction. The learned counsel refers to a decision of this Court in L.P.A No. 786 of 2018 titled “State of Jharkhand and Others v. Izhar Hussain” wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that there is no statutory provision in the State of Jharkhand for cancelling a long running jamabandi, and the said decision has attained finality after the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8102 of 2021 filed by the State of Jharkhand was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 22. The mutation proceedings are merely in the nature of fiscal inquiries and the orders passed by the revenue authorities do not decide right, title and interest in the landed property. In “State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha” (1969) 2 SCC 187 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that wherever there is a dispute as regards title of the occupant of the landed property the appropriate course for the revenue authority is to refer the parties to a competent Court and not to decide the question of title itself. In “Patil Raghav Natha” the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “14. We are also of the opinion that the Commissioner should not have gone into the question of title. It seems to us that when the title of an occupant is disputed by any party before the Collector or the Commissioner and the dispute is serious the appropriate course for the Collector or the Commissioner would be to refer the parties to a competent court and not to decide the question of title himself against the occupant.” 23. It seems to us that when the title of an occupant is disputed by any party before the Collector or the Commissioner and the dispute is serious the appropriate course for the Collector or the Commissioner would be to refer the parties to a competent court and not to decide the question of title himself against the occupant.” 23. The pleadings before the writ Court reveal that the private respondent(s) claimed right, title and interest over the subject properties by virtue of a Sada Hukumnama or Kabuliat by ex-landlord. The State of Jharkhand produced the certified copy of the returns filed by ex-landlord to controvert their claim. This is the stand taken by the State of Jharkhand that the returns in the name of six raiyats were filed by ex-landlord pertaining to a portion of the lands in Khata No. 383 of Khewat No. 2 and those raiyats are not the persons through whom Md. Zulfan Ansari, Afzal Hussain, Dharmesh Singh, Lalita Devi and Fulwanti Devi or their predecessors- in-interest or their vendors are claiming right, title and interest over the subject properties. A dispute of the similar nature has been raised by the Chintamni Trust which lays a serious challenge to the claim of Surajdeo Singh. 24. In the aforementioned facts, the question which falls for consideration in this batch of Letters Patent Appeals is whether the writ Court could have examined the claims made by the private-respondent(s) based on the documents produced by them. A writ Court generally does not enter into the realm of disputed facts except where the facts in dispute can be decided on the basis of the affidavits filed by the parties. The law on the subject appears to be quite settled that a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact may be entertained by the writ Court provided the facts in dispute can be determined without any strenuous exercise. In “Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda” (1969) 3 SCC 769 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to consider a fact in dispute merely because such question may fall for consideration. In “Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. In “Gunwant Kaur v. Municipal Committee, Bhatinda” (1969) 3 SCC 769 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to consider a fact in dispute merely because such question may fall for consideration. In “Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council” (1970) 1 SCC 582 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it shall not be lawful for the High Court to ask a party to seek relief through a civil suit merely because a question of fact is raised. As we have seen, there are serious disputes on facts which would require adjudication based on the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties. In a case where the writ Court is required to adjudicate facts with reference to property documents produced by the parties the writ Court shall be denuded of its powers to conduct a proceeding which essentially shall be in the nature of a trial before the civil Court. The writ Court itself recorded that as many as forty writ petitions have been filed by different persons claiming right, title and interest over a portion of the land comprised under Khata No. 383. 25. The powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are plenary and without any fetters but the exercise of powers by the writ Court should confirm to the judicially evolved rules. And, one of such rules is that the claim raised by the aggrieved party should be determined on the basis of the factual possession acknowledged by the respondent and not where the foundational facts are disputed. It is well settled a proposition in law that the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are discretionary in nature and its exercise must be judicious and in furtherance of justice, equity and good conscience. That seems to be the reason why the writ Court is required to take affidavits from the State-respondent and not to act on perfunctory affidavits so as to satisfy its conscience whether the relief sought by the aggrieved party is barred by law, suffers from delay and laches or would be against any public policy. In plain words, there should be sufficient factual foundation in the writ petition in support of the prayers made by the applicant. In plain words, there should be sufficient factual foundation in the writ petition in support of the prayers made by the applicant. The High Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution may exercise its discretionary powers but only after recording its satisfaction as regards entitlement of the aggrieved party. In “City and Industrial Development Corpn. v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala” (2009) 1 SCC 168 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the writ Court is duty bound to take all the facts and circumstances into consideration and wherever necessary may direct the State or its instrumentalities to file proper affidavits placing all the relevant facts truly and accurately for consideration of the Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “30. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether: (a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved; (b) the petition reveals all material facts; (c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute; (d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches; (e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation; (f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors. The Court in appropriate cases in its discretion may direct the State or its instrumentalities as the case may be to file proper affidavits placing all the relevant facts truly and accurately for the consideration of the Court and particularly in cases where public revenue and public interest are involved. Such directions are always required to be complied with by the State. No relief could be granted in a public law remedy as a matter of course only on the ground that the State did not file its counter-affidavit opposing the writ petition. Further, empty and self-defeating affidavits or statements of Government spokesmen by themselves do not form basis to grant any relief to a person in a public law remedy to which he is not otherwise entitled to in law.” 26. The large number of litigations filed in the Court with respect to the lands comprised under Khata No. 383 of Khewat No. 2 at village Pundag suggests that there are serious disputes touching upon the entitlement of the private parties over the subject property. The large number of litigations filed in the Court with respect to the lands comprised under Khata No. 383 of Khewat No. 2 at village Pundag suggests that there are serious disputes touching upon the entitlement of the private parties over the subject property. The writ Court overlooked serious allegations of forgery, collusion with the State authorities and fabrication of the documents. As the returns filed by ex-landlord would reveal, it is quite apparent that the claim of the private respondent(s) has been disputed by the State of Jharkhand not without any reason. In the circumstances of these cases, this Court shall not render a definite finding as to possession of the private respondent(s) who approached the writ Court to challenge the proceeding for cancellation of demand (jamabandi), or section 4(h) proceedings under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, or were seeking a direction for issuing the rent receipts to them on the basis of some order passed by this Court in the past. In “Brownsea Haven Properties Ltd. v. Poole Corpn.” (1958) 1 All ER 205, Lord Evershed, M.R. rendered an opinion that there is well-established authority for the view that a decision of long-standing based on which many persons over time have arranged their affairs should not lightly be disturbed by superior Court not strictly bound itself by the decision. The judicial discipline and proprietary require that we should follow the order passed by another Division Bench of this Court. But then, the adherence to the doctrine of precedent is not of universal application and for good reasons a coordinate Bench of co-equal strength may make a departure. As we have noticed, under the compelling circumstances an order for issuing rent receipts to Md. Muslim Ansari was passed in W.P.(C) No. 1119 of 2006 but now the records are produced by the State of Jharkhand which has raised serious concerns about manipulation of the documents. This is also quite relevant that there is a statutory regime providing the forum for appeal and revision under the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 and the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. This is also quite relevant that there is a statutory regime providing the forum for appeal and revision under the Bihar Tenant’s Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973 and the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. We therefore hold that only under the exceptional circumstances and for the compelling reasons, the order passed by the statutory revenue authorities can be laid to challenge in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the proper course for the aggrieved party shall be to approach the civil Court. 27. For the forgoing reasons, we interfere with the orders passed in W.P.(C) Nos. 5365 of 2014, 3878 of 2012, 1262 of 2010, 7595 of 2012. 7967 of 2012 and 7972 of 2012. 28. L.P.A No. 318 of 2022, L.P.A No. 319 of 2022, L.P.A No. 320 of 2022, L.P.A No. 369 of 2022 and L.P.A No. 406 of 2022 are allowed with liberty to the writ petitioners to work out their remedy as indicated hereinabove. 29. L.P.A No. 231 of 2022 is partly allowed. The order of the writ Court is set aside. The writ Court’s observation that the Chintamani Trust may approach the civil Court is however reiterated. In the meantime, the rent receipts shall not be issued in favor of either parties till the time the writ petitioner get an adjudication as regards his claim over the subject property-VI by challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner before the statutory authority or in the civil Court, without awaiting the Chintamani Trust to approach the civil Court.