JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. Prayer: 1. The instant appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 19.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3175 of 2018, whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order dated 16.10.2017 passed by the functionary of the Uranium Corporation of India (UCIL) by which the claim of the appellant-writ petitioner for grant of employment under Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of the management-UCIL has been rejected. Facts: 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated herein, reads as under: The father of appellant had purchased the landed property under Mouza Turamdih, Thana No. 1181 appertaining to Khata No. 13, Plot No. 28 admeasuring a total area of 7.5 decimals by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 04.06.2003. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum vide his Letter bearing Memo No. 1476 dated 17.12.2003 recommended the mutation of the aforementioned landed property in the name of the father of appellant after being satisfied that as to the authenticity of the transfer. Pursuant to the Letter of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum and in compliance with the procedures the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur vide Order dated 22.12.2003 allowed mutation in Mutation Case No. 1361/03-04 and accordingly Correction Slip was issued in favour of the father of the appellant. A Notification under Section-4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 followed by declaration under Section-6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 20.12.2003 and 24.12.2003 in the local daily newspaper for acquisition of the landed property for Respondent No. 5 under village- Turamdih, East Singhbhum. On the basis of the documents produced the father of the appellant was admitted as the rightful owner of the land in L.A. Case No. 01/2002-03 where after the PANCHAT Prepared and the same was submitted to the Government wherein the name of the father of the appellant as claimant is present at Serial No. 18 of the claimant column. A Notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer indicating the name of the father of appellant as raiyat and thereby directed appellant to be present on 08.04.2005 for claiming the same. A Notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer indicating the name of the father of appellant as raiyat and thereby directed appellant to be present on 08.04.2005 for claiming the same. After verification by the concerned officer a Certificate of Acquisition dated 21.01.2006 was issued in favour of the father of the appellant by the Respondent No. 5 indicating total compensation of Rs.7,223.00/- paid to the appellant as against the acquisition of 7.5 decimals of land and the name of Khatiyani Raiyat from whom the appellant had acquired the aforementioned landed property. Based on the R & R policy of the Respondent No. 5 the appellant claimed the benefit of employment but instead of providing employment to the appellant, the respondent no.5 has rejected the claim and filed Mutation Appeal No. 67/2010 challenging the legality and validity of the Order dated 22.12.2003 passed in the Mutation Case No. 1361/03-04. The respondent No. 4 vide Order dated 31.03.2011 allowed the appeal thereby setting aside Order dated 22.12.2003 passed by the Circle Officer, Jamshedpur in Mutation Case No. 1361/03-04. Being aggrieved by the Order of the Respondent No. 4 the father of the appellant preferred Revision before the Respondent No. 2 bearing Mutation Revision Case No. 36/2011 whereby and where under the Respondent No. 2 vide Order dated 10.12.2015 had rejected the Revision application of the appellant. The father of the appellant approached this Hon'ble Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 2281 off 2016 which after hearing the parties was disposed of directing appellant to approach Respondent UCIL on 17.04.2017. The appellant, thereafter, filed representation before the UCIL for granting employment in terms of R and R Policy on 17.05.2017 along with the Order passed in Writ Application. The UCIL has passed order on the representation of the appellant vide Order dated 16.10.2017 rejecting the claim for employment. Thereafter, the appellant moved before this Hon'ble Court by filing Contempt Petition which was numbered as Cont. Case (Civil) No. 791 of 2017, which was dropped vide Order dated 16.02.2018 holding that the order passed on representation proceedings cannot be looked into in contempt. Thereafter, the appellant moved before this Hon'ble Court by filing Contempt Petition which was numbered as Cont. Case (Civil) No. 791 of 2017, which was dropped vide Order dated 16.02.2018 holding that the order passed on representation proceedings cannot be looked into in contempt. The appellant being aggrieved approached the Court in W.P.(S) No. 3175 of 2018 wherein vide order dated 19.07.2022, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the claim of the appellant for grant of employment in lieu of the land as per Rehabilitation and Corporation of India Ltd. against which the present appeal has been preferred. 3. It is evident from the factual aspect referred hereinabove that the land in question was acquired vide Land Acquisition Case No.01 of 2002-03. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the day when the notification was issued under Section 4, i.e., on 20.12.2003, the aforesaid land measuring an are of 7.5 decimals was purchased by the father of the appellant, namely, Majhia Murmu on 04.06.2003. The father of the appellant being the title holder of the said land became entitled for compensation as also for various benefits as has been decided to be given to the land losers under the R & R Policy (Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy) which has been formulated by way of beneficial piece of measure for the purpose of rehabilitation/resettlement of the displaced persons. The appellant although has been paid compensation but as per the policy decision as under R & R Policy, the appointment has not been provided, hence, the pretext was taken by the UCIL that there was some dispute regarding the entering the name of the appellant in the Register-II for which the litigation was going on before the revenue authorities. The father of the appellant, being aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the respondent UCIL has preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2281 of 2016 seeking therein direction for providing appointment. The learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 17.04.2017 after taking note of the submission made on behalf of the respondent UCIL has passed an order that on the garb of orders of the revenue authorities, the claim for rehabilitation under the R & R Policy cannot be denied. The learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 17.04.2017 after taking note of the submission made on behalf of the respondent UCIL has passed an order that on the garb of orders of the revenue authorities, the claim for rehabilitation under the R & R Policy cannot be denied. The respondent UCIL in view of the aforesaid fact that on the basis of the order passed by the revenue authorities, the title over the land in question cannot be said to be extinguished, hence, the writ petition was disposed of reserving liberty to him to approach the respondent-UCIL for Rehabilitation under the R & R Policy applicable. The respondent – UCIL has passed an order on 16.10.2017 rejecting the claim of the appellant by coming to the conclusion that his case does not fall for consideration for appointment. The appellant being aggrieved with the said order, approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3175 of 2018. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by declining to interfere with the impugned order on the ground that the appellant/writ petitioner has not annexed any policy to show that he was entitled for any employment under the R & R Policy of the respondents. The said order is under challenge by filing this appeal. Arguments on behalf of the Appellant-Writ Petitioner: 4. Mr. Amit Kr. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant has taking the following grounds : (i) The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has not appreciated the fact that the respondent-UCIL while rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner has not assigned any reason as to why the writ petitioner, who even though is having the title over the land in question, has not called for consideration for the appointment, therefore, the said decision is cryptic and mechanical but without taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, the impugned order has been passed. (ii) The ground has been taken that the dismissal of writ petition is solely based upon the fact that the writ petitioner has not produced the rehabilitation and resettlement policy. (ii) The ground has been taken that the dismissal of writ petition is solely based upon the fact that the writ petitioner has not produced the rehabilitation and resettlement policy. It has been submitted that since the writ petitioner is a land loser and the R&R Policy is in the custody of the respondent, hence, the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition ought to have called upon the UCIL to produce the said document by taking into consideration the fact that the writ petitioner is the victim of land loser and if any R&R Policy has been formulated, the same being in the custody of the management-UCIL, direction would have been upon the management – UCIL to produce the said document rather than taking the said ground of not producing of policy for dismissal of the writ petition. (iii) Further ground has been taken by referring the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court wherein the same grievance was raised by the writ petitioner wherein stand although was taken of pending litigation about the revenue entry in the revenue record but the said writ petition was disposed of with the liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the management UCIL for consideration of his case, meaning thereby, the issue of any dispute said to be made in the revenue record cannot be a ground prevailing upon the title of the writ petitioner but the impugned order has been passed without any reason. 5. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the impugned order therefore suffers from error and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Arguments on behalf of the Respondent-UCIL: 6. Learned counsel for the respondent-UCIL has taken the following grounds in defending the impugned order: (i) The decision which has been taken while rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for providing appointment vide order dated 16.10.2017 cannot be said to suffer from error due to the reason that the writ petitioner has been considered to be not the original owner at the time of notification of the Gazette. (ii) The ground has been taken that the learned Single Judge considering the aforesaid fact since has dismissed the writ petition by declining to interfere with the impugned order, as such, the same cannot be said to suffer from error. (ii) The ground has been taken that the learned Single Judge considering the aforesaid fact since has dismissed the writ petition by declining to interfere with the impugned order, as such, the same cannot be said to suffer from error. (iii) Learned counsel has also tried to impress upon the Court by referring to R&R Policy which has been appended as Annexure-I to the supplementary affidavit having been filed on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner wherein the relevant condition governing the field has been referred, i.e., condition 4.0 under the Caption Head – Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme and in that view of the matter, the writ petitioner is not entitled for appointment. 7. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned order, therefore, cannot be said to suffer from an error. Arguments on behalf of the Respondent-State: 8. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that the State being the acquisitioning authority and after acquisition of the land, the due compensation was given. 9. Learned counsel, for the purpose of demonstrating the aforesaid argument, has referred the order dated 17.04.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.2281 of 2016 by this Court wherein it has been referred that the interest of the writ petitioner has already been said to be taken care of from the stand taken by the UCIL in W.P.(C) No. 2281 of 2016 wherein the stand of the respondent UCIL was that if the writ petitioner falls under the category of land loser and has got compensation in lieu of the land acquired and if the R&R Policy permits rehabilitation to such oustee, the order passed by the revenue authorities would make no difference to the claim of the writ petitioner. 10. The submission, therefore, has been made that the ground which has been taken with respect to the pending litigation regarding the revenue entry cannot be said to be a ground for rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner. 11. Further, he has submitted that since the decision of providing appointment is to be taken by the respondent-UCIL, hence, for the aforesaid purpose, the State is a formal party. Analysis: 12. 11. Further, he has submitted that since the decision of providing appointment is to be taken by the respondent-UCIL, hence, for the aforesaid purpose, the State is a formal party. Analysis: 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone across the pleading made in the writ petition and memo of appeal including the R&R Policy appended by way of supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner as also the reason of rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner in the impugned order dated 16.10.2017 and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 13. This Court, before entering into the legality and propriety of the order passed by the administrative authority dated 16.10.2017 and the infirmity which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner in the impugned order, needs to refer some undisputed fact. 14. It is the admitted fact herein that the proposal of acquisition of land has been made by the State of Jharkhand in order to handover the said land in favour of the UCIL by taking recourse of the acquisition mechanism, i.e., Land Acquisition Act, 1894. A notification was issued under Section 4 on 20.12.2003. 15. The father of the appellant-writ petitioner has purchased the said land as would appear from the sale deed as has been appended to the paperbook on 04.06.2003 from his vendor, namely, Taranisen Nayak son of Gobinda Nayak. The notification since was issued on 20.12.2003 which was after the purchase of the said land by the father of the appellant-writ petitioner on 04.06.2003, therefore, presumption under the law would be that the notice under Section 4 was given to the father of the writ petitioner since he was holding the possession over the land in question by virtue of registered sale deed, therefore, the aforesaid fact is also not disputed as would appear from the stand taken by the management UCIL wherein the reference was made as under paragraph-4 that if the writ petitioner falls under the category of land loser and has got compensation in lieu of the land acquired and if the R&R Policy permits rehabilitation to such oustee, the order passed by the revenue authorities would make no difference to the claim of the writ petitioner. 16. 16. The respondent UCIL has passed the order on 16.10.2017 by considering the representation dated 17.05.2017 which was filed in pursuance of the liberty granted to the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2281 of 2016. 17. It is evident from the said order that there is no denial that the writ petitioner has not got the amount of compensation rather as would appear from paragraph-2 of the impugned order wherein it has been referred that “after acceptance of compensation also, you are not entitled for any consideration under the company R&R Policy as you are not the original owner at the time of notification of Gazette”. 18. The aforesaid stand of the respondent-UCIL thus establishes the fact that father of the appellant-writ petitioner has accepted the compensation but the claim so made has been denied by passing the order dated 16.10.2017. 19. The appellant-writ petitioner has carried the said order by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3175 of 2018 wherein the ground was taken that while taking the ground of rejection of the claim that the application given after admitting the fact that the father of the writ petitioner has accepted the amount of compensation but taking the ground of pending litigation regarding the revenue entry to be made in the revenue record, the claim has been rejected which is contrary to the stand taken by the UCIL as referred in paragrahph-4 of the order passed in W.P.(C) No. 2281 of 2016 wherein the stand taken needs to be referred herein, which reads as under : “4. Learned counsel for the Respondent-UCIL submits that there are no averments to that effect, neither are any decision of the UCIL to that effect brought on record to substantiate the aforesaid apprehension. It is also submitted that if the petitioner falls under the category of land loser and has got compensation in lieu of the land acquired and if the R&R policy permits rehabilitation to such oustee, the order passed by the Revenue Authorities would make no difference to the claim of the petitioner. Fact of the matter is that the outcome of the exercise assailing the orders of mutation passed in favour of the Respondent UCIL would be of no meaning to the petitioner.” 20. Fact of the matter is that the outcome of the exercise assailing the orders of mutation passed in favour of the Respondent UCIL would be of no meaning to the petitioner.” 20. But, the learned Single Judge has accepted the ground taken by the respondent-UCIL in rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner in the garb of pending litigation for entry to be made in the revenue records as also the rehabilitation policy was not brought on record by the writ petitioner which is the subject matter of the instant appeal. 21. It cannot be disputed that once the land has been acquired the livelihood of the title holder over the land in question is to go for all time to come. Compensation is one part as under compensation was the sole criteria for acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but the UCIL management for the purpose of rehabilitation and resettlement of the displaced persons, has taken a beneficial measure by formulating a policy decision. The copy of the same has been brought on record by way of filing I.A. No. 7431 of 2023 filed on behalf of the appellant. The reference of the same needs to be made herein, wherein the sole purpose of R&R Policy is that the compensation is to be paid in favour of the displaced persons as also better arrangement is to be made for resettlement and rehabilitation as far as possible. For ready reference, the very object of the said scheme needs to be referred which reads as under : 22. It further appears from the condition no.3.2(a) that the coverage of the said policy has been decided to provide the benefit of the said scheme who have been displaced in terms of the notice issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. For ready reference, condition no.3.0(3.2)(a) is being referred as under : 23. Further, as under condition no.4.0 under the caption head-Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme, whereby and whereunder, the decision was taken to provide employment. For ready reference, condition no.4.0 is being referred as under : 24. It is evident from the said condition that the basis to provide appointment on property basis has been made. Further, as under condition no.4.0 under the caption head-Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme, whereby and whereunder, the decision was taken to provide employment. For ready reference, condition no.4.0 is being referred as under : 24. It is evident from the said condition that the basis to provide appointment on property basis has been made. As under condition no.4.0 (iii), the first preference is to be given to the said displaced persons who has been dispossessed from the houses which were available in the raiyati land. Thereafter, the conditions have been made (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) that after providing appointment to said displaced persons who have come under the category (a) depending upon the area of land acquired the appointment is to be provided. The fact about the compensation being paid in favour of the writ petitioner since is not in dispute, hence, as per the policy decision for providing employment under condition 4.0(iii), the writ petitioner will come under the said category reason being that after purchase of the land on 04.06.2003 through the registered sale deed, he became the title holder. 25. The writ petitioner when approached to this Court then his claim was not considered then the respondent-UCIL has taken the ground that the issue of entry to be made in the revenue record cannot be an issue of non-consideration of the claim for appointment as per the reference of paragraph-4 of the said order dated 17.04.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2281 of 2016 as quoted and referred above. 26. The respondent while considering the case on the basis of the representation has taken the sole ground about the pending litigation before the revenue court by disputing the title of the writ petitioner over the land in question by giving go-by to the registered seal dated 04.06.2023 whereby and whereunder, the father of the writ petitioner has purchased the land from his vendor, namely, Taranisen Nayak. 27. The notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 since was issued on 20.12.2003 hence, the day when the notice was issued, the writ petitioner will come under the fold of the land loser. 27. The notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 since was issued on 20.12.2003 hence, the day when the notice was issued, the writ petitioner will come under the fold of the land loser. The fact about the land being raiyati in nature is not in dispute, meaning thereby, the house was there in the raiyati land at the time when the notice under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 was issued and by virtue of the aforesaid admitted fact, the amount of compensation has also been paid as would appear from the reference to that effect made in the impugned order dated 16.10.2017. Therefore, the authority while rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner on the basis of pending litigation regarding the revenue entry has passed patently illegal order and not only that the said reason is contrary to the stand taken by the management-UCIL before this Court. 28. Further, it needs to refer herein that as per the policy decision, the writ petitioner falling under the category 4.0(iii) cannot be disputed in view of the admitted fact that the father of the writ petitioner has purchased the land on 04.06.2003 and notice for acquisition was issued on 20.12.2003. 29. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the impugned order dated 16.10.2017 passed by the respondent-UCIL cannot be said to be sustainable in the eyes of law rather it is contrary to the policy measure as has been taken by the respondent-management UCIL. 30. This Court, after discussing the issue as above and coming to the order passed by the learned Single Judge has found that the learned Single Judge has also accepted the ground put forth on behalf of the respondent-UCIL regarding the dispute of title. But, how the title over the land in question of the writ petitioner has been said to be disputed, no reason has been assigned or disclosed by the respondent-Management. The learned Single Judge in absence of any reason to that effect also accepted the said stand of the respondent-UCIL. 31. It further needs to refer herein that the question of title since depend upon the record of rights or the mode of transfer if made under the mechanism of Transfer of Property Act. 32. The position of law is well settled that the mutation does not create or extinguish right in favour of any party. 31. It further needs to refer herein that the question of title since depend upon the record of rights or the mode of transfer if made under the mechanism of Transfer of Property Act. 32. The position of law is well settled that the mutation does not create or extinguish right in favour of any party. It is simply an evidence of possession over the land. It is also settled position of law that besides title, mutation is an evidence of possession and therefore, even if a person has got a title that shall not be deemed to be the evidence of possession unless mutation is done and rent receipts are issued in favour of the one or the other, as has been held by this Court in the judgment rendered in Chotanagpur Engineering Works Ltd. Vs. State of Jharkhand [ (2006) 1 JCR 80 (Jhr)] in particular paragraph 6, which reads as under : "6. It is well settled that besides title, mutation is an evidence of possession and therefore even if a person has got a title that shall not be deemed to be the evidence of possession unless mutation is clone and rent receipts are issued in favour of the owner of the building." Reference in this regard further be made to the recent judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. [(2021) SCC OnLine SC 802], wherein the Hon’ble Court has been pleased to hold that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. For ready reference, the relevant paragraph 7 of the judgment is quoted as under : "7. Right from 1997, the law is very clear. In the case of Balwant Singh v. Daulat Singh (D) By Lrs., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 137 , this Court had an occasion to consider the effect of mutation and it is observed and held that mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has it any presumptive value on title. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been expressed in the series of decisions thereafter." 33. Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. Similar view has been expressed in the series of decisions thereafter." 33. It needs to refer that the learned counsel for the respondent-UCIL is fair enough to admit the aforesaid legal position that the entry to be made in the revenue record neither creates nor extinguishes the right. 34. Another reason taken by the learned Single Judge is that the R&R Policy was to be produced by the writ petitioner but was not produced, but the said reason, according to the considered view of this Court, cannot be said to be valid reason for the reason that when the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy has been formulated by the management-UCIL, then the learned Single Judge by keeping the fact into consideration that the consideration was to be made for the purpose of observation of the welfare measure as per the decision taken in the R&R Policy then the respondent-UCIL ought to have been called upon to produce the said policy but there is no direction to that effect. Conclusion: 35. This Court, in the entirety of facts and circumstances as discussed hereinabove, is of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge needs to be interfered with. 36. Accordingly, the order dated 19.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3175 of 2018 is hereby, quashed and set aside. 37. In view thereof, the writ petition stands allowed, accordingly, the order dated 16.10.2017 passed by the respondent-UCIL also stands quashed and set aside. 38. The respondent no.5 is directed to consider the case of the appellant-writ petitioner, in accordance with law, within the period of three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order. 39. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. 40. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.