JUDGMENT : (Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.) Prayer: 1. The instant appeal under Clause 10 of the letters patent is directed against the order dated 31.08.2023 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 761 of 2023, whereby and whereunder, the learned writ court has dismissed the writ petition by refusing to interfere with the proceeding which has been initiated under Misc. Case No.05 of 2022-23 related to cancellation of jamabandi. Facts: 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleadings in the writ petition which requires to be enumerated herein, read as under: It is the case of the writ petitioner that the lands being Khata No.86, plot no.907 of mouja Kudra, Area 0.73 acres is a khatiyani raiyati land and the name of the grandfather of the writ petitioner, namely, Sukhan Lohar is recorded in the khatiyan as also the jamabandi of lands in question has been created and recorded as Raiyat in the name of grandfather of the appellant in Register-II. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the Circle Officer, Sisai alongwith other officials started creating hindrance over the possession of the writ petitioner in collusion with other land mafias to which the writ petitioner made a complaint before the Commissioner, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi on 30.05.2022. The writ petitioner has also sought for information regarding the acquisition of land in question from the office of DCLR, Gumla through RTI, which has been replied that the land in question has never been acquired for any purpose. It is the case of the writ petitioner that all of a sudden, a notice dated 18.07.2022 was received from the office of Circle Officer, Sisai in a Misc. Case No. 05/2022-23 asking the writ petitioner to appear before the said office along with all documents with respect to the land in question as it was stated that the lands are acquired land to which the writ petitioner appeared and filed his reply annexing the relevant documents but thereafter the writ petitioner got no response. Thereafter, the writ petitioner received another notice 07.09.2022 from the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Gumla asking the writ petitioner to appear before the concerned authority for hearing of the aforesaid misc. case. Thereafter, the writ petitioner received another notice 07.09.2022 from the office of Sub-Divisional Officer, Gumla asking the writ petitioner to appear before the concerned authority for hearing of the aforesaid misc. case. but without hearing the notice as contained in Memo No. 131(ii) dated 04.02.2023 issued by the Circle Officer, Sisai which was issued to the writ petitioner, directing to remove the encirclement from the land in question. The writ petitioner, thereafter, made an application before the Circle Officer, Sisai requesting to provide the letter no.105(ii)dated 28.01.2023 which was provided by the Circle Officer, Sisai wherein direction was given to the Circle Officer, Sisai to create new jamaandi in the name of the Government that too without acquisition of the same. Being aggrieved thereof, the writ petitioner approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 761 of 2023, whereby and whereunder, the learned writ court has dismissed the writ petition by refusing to interfere with the proceeding which has been initiated under Misc. Case No.05 of 2022-23 related to initiation of proceeding of cancellation of jamabandi against which the appeal is preferred. 3. It is evident from the facts as referred hereinabove that writ petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the very initiation of the proceeding initiated under Misc. Case No.05 of 2022-23 for cancellation of jamabandi which is running in the name of the predecessor in interest of the writ petitioner, namely, Late Sukhan Lohar son of Late Ghuran Lohar. 4. The background of initiation of the said proceeding as per the decision taken by the State as has been reflected in the counter affidavit is that the land in question has been acquired by the State when the land was under the exclusive title of late predecessor in interest of the writ petitioner, namely, Sukhan Lohar. The contention of the State is that the land was acquired by initiating a regular proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. While the contention of the petitioner before the learned writ court was that the fact about the acquisition of land is incorrect and the land in question is still in the possession of the writ petitioner and the land has never been acquired by taking recourse of the land acquisition mechanism. While the contention of the petitioner before the learned writ court was that the fact about the acquisition of land is incorrect and the land in question is still in the possession of the writ petitioner and the land has never been acquired by taking recourse of the land acquisition mechanism. The learned writ court has considered the rival contentions of the parties taking into consideration the document appended as Annexure-H to the counter affidavit which is a document upon which reliance has been placed that the amount of compensation has been received by the predecessor in interest, namely, Sukhan Lohar which contains his thumb impression. The learned writ court, based upon the aforesaid document, came to the conclusion that in such circumstances, there cannot be any interference with the misc. proceeding, however, since the writ petitioner is claiming the possession since last 90 years, as such, the learned writ court came to the conclusion that the remedy available to the writ petitioner is to file suit before the competent court of civil jurisdiction for claiming the title based upon the ground of possession which is under challenge in this appeal. Argument on behalf of the Appellant-Writ Petitioner: 5. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Om Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the very fundamental of the issue that the State has failed to produce any relevant document, i.e., preparation of award, etc., which is required as per the provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 6. The argument has been advanced that the learned Single Judge has only relied upon Annexure-H but the same cannot be said to be conclusive document in arriving to the conclusion of acquisition of land in question since there is no reference of any case number etc. 7. The learned senior counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the learned Single Judge, therefore, has committee error in passing the impugned order, hence, the same is fit to be quashed and set aside. Argument on behalf of the Respondents: 8. Mrs. 7. The learned senior counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the learned Single Judge, therefore, has committee error in passing the impugned order, hence, the same is fit to be quashed and set aside. Argument on behalf of the Respondents: 8. Mrs. Nirupama, learned counsel for the respondents has contended by defending the impugned order that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the stand inter alia taken in the counter affidavit that the land has already been acquired during the lifetime of Late Sukhan Lohar who was the predecessor in interest of the writ petitioner. 9. It has been submitted that Sukhan Lohar has also received the amount of compensation as would be evident from Annexure-H appended to the counter affidavit. 10. Learned State counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that if the learned Single Judge taking into consideration the stand taken in the counter affidavit, has dismissed the writ petition, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error, hence, the instant appeal also deserves to be dismissed. 11. It has further been contended that the learned writ court has also made observation that in such circumstances, the remedy available to the writ petitioner is to file suit before the competent court of civil jurisdiction as also it has been observed that making entry in the revenue record neither creates nor extinguishes the right of a person. Analysis: 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone across the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 13. The undisputed fact in this case is that proceeding was initiated under Misc. Case No. 05 of 2022-23 having been initiated for cancellation of jamabandi which was running in the name of the predecessor in interest of the writ petitioner. 14. The ground for initiation of the aforesaid proceeding as would appear from factual aspect as has been pleaded in the counter affidavit filed in the writ proceeding is that the land was acquired by the State during the lifetime of the predecessor in interest to the writ petitioner, namely, Sukhan Lohar. 15. The writ petitioner, has approached to this Court by invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the aforesaid misc. 15. The writ petitioner, has approached to this Court by invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the aforesaid misc. proceeding on the ground that the land has never been acquired rather the land in question is still in possession of the writ petitioner. 16. The learned writ court has refused to interfere with the proceeding already initiated being Misc. Case No. 05 of 2022-23, against which the present appeal has been preferred. 17. The argument has been advanced on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner that if the land has been acquired then the relevant document ought to have been produced by the State and further the writ petitioner is in possession of the land in question for last 90 years and as such, the initiation of proceeding for cancellation of jamabandi which is running for last 90 years cannot be said to just and proper. 18. While, on the other hand, the State has taken the plea by relying upon Annexure-H as a piece of evidence for receipt of the amount of compensation by the predecessor in interest in lieu of acquisition of land. 19. The learned writ court has gone across all the stand taken on behalf of the parties and in such circumstances, has come to the conclusion that the fact is in dispute as is disputed by the writ petitioner on the ground of possession for 90 years while the specific case of the State is that the land has already been acquired way back almost 90 years ago. 20. The issue which requires consideration by this Court is that in such circumstances of the disputed question of fact where the State is claiming land to be possessed after acquisition of the same while the writ petitioner is claiming his title over the land on the basis of possession over the land 90 years. 21. The question which has been raised of no document having been produced by the State regarding the acquisition, the same according to us, cannot be said to have substance in view of the reliance having been put by the State upon Annexure-H to the counter affidavit. 22. We have closely scrutinized the Annexure-H wherefrom it is evident that the name of the predecessor in interest of the writ petitioner has been mentioned along with his thumb impression (LTI). 23. 22. We have closely scrutinized the Annexure-H wherefrom it is evident that the name of the predecessor in interest of the writ petitioner has been mentioned along with his thumb impression (LTI). 23. The writ petitioner is disputing the aforesaid document also and the reason for such dispute is that the successor in interest of Sukhan Lohar, i.e., the writ petitioner herein, is still in possession of the land in question. 24. There might be possession over the land in question but the question is that a document has been produced by the State before the learned writ court in order to substantiate that the amount of compensation has been received by the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioner then giving go-by to the said document cannot be said to be just and proper and considering the aforesaid fact, the learned Single Judge has relied upon the said document. 25. Further, the learned Single Judge while relying upon the said document as also taking into consideration the contention advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner regarding the possession over the land in question for last 90 years has not interfered with the misc. proceeding keeping into consideration the document as appended as Annexure-H to the counter affidavit as has been referred in paragraphs-6 and 9 of the impugned order. Conclusion: 26. This Court, therefore, is of the view that when a document is there which led the learned Single Judge to come to the conclusion that the land has been acquired and in lieu thereof, the amount of compensation has been received but the question of possession of 90 years has also been taken into consideration and that is the reason the learned Single Judge has made observation that a suit for title or possession can be filed for which the forum is else and thereby, the learned writ court on the one hand has not interfered with the misc. proceeding which pertains to cancellation of jamabandi while on the other hand, has also considered the issue of possession over the land in question for 90 years and for the aforesaid reason, the observation has been made by giving liberty to the appellant/appellant to approach the competent forum in order to establish his title. 27. proceeding which pertains to cancellation of jamabandi while on the other hand, has also considered the issue of possession over the land in question for 90 years and for the aforesaid reason, the observation has been made by giving liberty to the appellant/appellant to approach the competent forum in order to establish his title. 27. This Court, in view of the aforesaid fact and based upon the discussion as made hereinabove, is of the view that the order impugned needs no interference. 28. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed. 29. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.