JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This application has been filed the applicant to intervene in the instant Writ application as a party respondent no.7 as he is a necessary party. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner and official Respondents does not have any serious objection. Looking to averments made in the instant interlocutory application, this application is allowed and as such the applicant namely Adalat Rajak is made as party Respondent no.7. 4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 8397 stands disposed of. With consent of the parties, the main application was heard. W.P. (C) No. 1794 of 2024 5. The instant Writ application has preferred by the Petitioner praying therein for quashing of the impugned order dated 13.02.2024 passed in case no. 01/23-24 (Annexure-6) by the 5th Respondent; whereby the claim of the petitioner for issuance of rent receipt in respect to the land in question has been rejected on the erroneous ground and extraneous consideration which is contrary to the findings with respect to land in question in Title Suit No. 6/2 of 1971/73 wherein the suit has been decreed in favour of the predecessor of Petitioner by the Competent Civil Court.Petitioner further prays for issuance for a direction upon the concerned Respondent for issuance of rent receipt in respect to the land in question forthwith. 6. The brief facts as per the pleadings are that the land in question relates to Khata No. 145 appertaining to Khewat no.26 of village Majurdubhi, Thana-Chandankiyari, wherein total area 52.55 Acres are ancestral property of the Petitioner which was obtained by his grandmother namely Smt. Satadal Chandra by way of permanent settlement through registered deed of indenture dated 22.09.1951.After knowing the fact that the State of Bihar made settlement of land in question in favour of 13 persons; then the grandmother of the petitioner preferred Title Suit No. 6 of 1971 against the State of Bihar & others. The Title Suit No. 6/2 of 1971/73 was decreed in favour of Petitioner’s grandmother vide Judgment dated 28.02.1973 wherein the learned Court held that the suit is decreed on contest with cost against the defendant no.1 (State of Bihar) and decreed ex-parte without cost so far defendants no. The Title Suit No. 6/2 of 1971/73 was decreed in favour of Petitioner’s grandmother vide Judgment dated 28.02.1973 wherein the learned Court held that the suit is decreed on contest with cost against the defendant no.1 (State of Bihar) and decreed ex-parte without cost so far defendants no. 2 to 14 are concerned.Learned Trial Court held that the title of Plaintiff no.1 to the suit land described in Schedule "A" is hereby declared and her possession over the same is confirmed. Defendants are also permanently injuncted from taking possession over the schedule "B" land.Accordingly, decree was prepared and signed on 06.03.1973. Rent for the aforesaid plot was thereafter being paid regularly by father of the Petitioner which is evident vide rent receipt dated 17.08.2014. But thereafter, the Respondent authorities stopped issuing the rent receipt. Pursuant thereto;father of the petitioner namely Pradip Chandra vide letter dated 11.07.2017 made request to the Circle Officer, Chandankiyari for acceptance of rent and issuance of rent receipt and after the demise of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner made a representation before the Circle Officer, Chandankiyari, Bokaro vide his letter dated 03.02.23 for issuance of rent receipt and mutation of his name in revenue record.Since no decision was taken by the respondent authorities, the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing no. W.P. (C) No. 1413/2023 before this Court and this Court disposed of the writ petition with a liberty to the Petitioner to prefer a fresh representation on the present issue before the 5th Respondent. Thereafter, petitioner filed fresh representation dated 18.05.23, however when no order was passed by the respondents on the representation filed by the petitioner, hence he preferred a Contempt Case no. 654/2023 before this Court. Thereafter the 5th Respondent passed impugned order; whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Hence this Writ application. 7. Thereafter, petitioner filed fresh representation dated 18.05.23, however when no order was passed by the respondents on the representation filed by the petitioner, hence he preferred a Contempt Case no. 654/2023 before this Court. Thereafter the 5th Respondent passed impugned order; whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Hence this Writ application. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the 5th Respondent is an unreasoned order and in contrary to the findings with respect to land in question in Title Suit No. 6/2 of 1971/73 wherein the suit has been decreed in favour of the predecessor of Petitioner by Competent Civil Court and the concerned Respondent has not applied his mind before passing the impugned order in rejecting the representation of the petitioner and the action of the respondent to not mutate the name of the petitioner in revenue record is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. He further submits that the Revenue authorities has no jurisdiction to take a stand contrary to the Competent Civil Court and go beyond and review the decree passed by Competent Civil Court which has attained finality in the year 1973 itself. He further submits that the action of respondents’ authority by not accepting the rent in respect to the land in question will amount to loss of State Exchequer or revenue when there is valid declaration of Title and confirmation of possession vide judgment dated 28.02.1973 passed in Title Suit No.6/2 of 1971/73; as such, the impugned order be quashed and the concerned respondent be directed to accept the rent and issue rent receipt in respect of land in question. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent after relying into its counter affidavit submits that impugned order dated 13.02.2024 was passed after going through the judgement and decree passed in Title Suit No. 6/2 of 1971/73 and in the impugned order it is a specifically mentioned that plot wise area has not been mentioned as claimed by the writ petitioner. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent after relying into its counter affidavit submits that impugned order dated 13.02.2024 was passed after going through the judgement and decree passed in Title Suit No. 6/2 of 1971/73 and in the impugned order it is a specifically mentioned that plot wise area has not been mentioned as claimed by the writ petitioner. He further submits that Petitioner has not mentioned plot wise area in his writ petition as plot wise area is necessary for issuance of rent receipt.He further submits that the claim of the writ petitioner is over 52.55 Acres but in what plot and what area of land has been settled, it is nowhere mentioned in the writ petition and it is the Petitioner who has to disclose the specific area of each and every plot which are settled to the writ petitioner so that rent receipt may be issued for the specific area, inasmuch as, the total area of land mentioned in Schedule-A of the decree in the title suit comes to 42.99 acres; however, petitioner claim as per writ application is for 52.5 acres. 9. Learned counsel for the official respondents further submits that the land of Mouza Majurdubhi Plot No. 735 is notified as protected forest land Under Section 29 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 dated 09 July 1958 and the said notification is still is in existence and the said notification has not been challenged in Title Suit No. 6/2 of 1971/1973 by the Plaintiffs, predecessor of the writ petitioner, and therefore it is not possible to make entry of the said plot in Register II in favour of Writ petitioner as such no relief should be granted to petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the 7th Respondent submits that some portion of plot no 737 and plot no.787 were settled in favour of his father-late Nepal Chandra Rajak by way of Bandobasti agreement after the implementation of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950. He further submits that the Title Suit No. 6/2 of 1971/73 is a collusive decree and by virtue of this decree, neither Smt. Satadal Chandra nor his successors ever came into possession over the land in question which has been in peaceful possession of late Nepal Chandra Rajak, the father of the intervenor and the said decree is never binding upon them; as such no relief should be granted to the petitioner. 11. 11. Having heard learned Counsels for the parties and after going through documents annexed with the respective affidavits it transpires that by a registered deed of Indenture dated 22.09.1951, grandmother of Petitioner namely Smt. Satadal Chandra took permanent settlement of the tenure right of 52.55 acres of land under the said khata no. 145, appertaining to khewat no. 26 of the same village from 16 annas Malik of Mouza Majurdubhi on payment of a salami of Rs. 4354/- and on annual rental of Rs. 77.75 P. Subsequently, after knowing the fact that State of Bihar made settlement of land in question in favour of 13 persons; the grandmother of the Petitioner preferred Title Suit No.6 of 1971 against the State of Bihar & others which was decreed in her favour vide Judgment dated 28.02.1973 and thereafter rent for the above said plot was fixed and being paid regularly even by father of the Petitioner after the demise of the original Raiyat which is evident vide rent receipt dated 17.08.2014. However, thereafter, the Respondent authority stopped issuing the rent receipts. Thereafter, father of the Petitioner namely Pradip Chandra vide letter dated 11.07.2017 and after his demise the petitioner made a representation before the Circle Officer, Chandankiyari, Bokaro vide his letter dated 03.02.23 for acceptance of Rent and issuance of Rent Receipt after mutating his name in Revenue Record. Since no decision was taken by the concerned respondent, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition bearing no. W.P. (C) No. 1413/2023 before this Court. Pursuant to order passed by this Court, the 5th Respondent rejected the claim of the Petitioner by passing an order dated 13.02.2024. 12. To decide this case two issues are involved to be adjudicated by this Court: (i) Whether the Petitioner has a valid title over 52.5 acre of land? (ii) Whether a decree of the Civil Court is binding on the Revenue Authorities? 13. To decide the 1st issues, it is necessary to peruse the Judgment passed the by learned Trial Court. For brevity, relevant para of the judgement passed in the Title Suit No. 6/2 of 1971/73 is extracted hereinbelow:- “18 …….As such, it is held that the plaintiff no. 1 has got a subsisting title to the schedule 'A' land. Her possession over the same is also confirmed. And accordingly, both these issues are decided in favour of plaintiff no. 1. 1 has got a subsisting title to the schedule 'A' land. Her possession over the same is also confirmed. And accordingly, both these issues are decided in favour of plaintiff no. 1. It is also held that as plaintiff nos. 2 to 5 failed to prove their title to the suit land and therefore they are non-suited.” 23………..…that the suit is decreed on contest with cost against defendant no. 1 and decreed ex-parte without cost so far defendants 2 to 14 are concerned. The title of plaintiff no.1 to the suit land described in Schedule 'A' is hereby declared and her possession over the same is confirmed. Defendants are also permanently injuncted from taking possession over Schedule 'B' land………….” After perusing the aforesaid judgement, it is crystal clear that the learned Trial Court held that the petitioner’s grandmother has got a subsisting title. Against the aforesaid judgment, no appeal was preferred by the State of Bihar or the Private Respondents which is evident from para 11 of its counter affidavit filed by the official Respondents wherein it has been stated after due search no official record is available at the office of 5th Respondent (Circle Officer, Chandankiyari) to suggest whether any appeal has been filed against the said Judgment and decree before the learned District Judge Dhanbad or before this High Court at that time as Judgment and decree is very old, more than 50 years ago. Hence, the said decree passed in Title Suit has attained finality and so far as Respondents’ contention with regard of factual aspect with regard to area of land can be very well raised in Title Suit where they were already made party. Hence, first issue is decided in favour of petitioner. 14. For the second issue, though it is now well settled that a decree of the Civil Court is binding on the Revenue Authorities; however, it is profitable to peruse the judgement passed in the case of Amrit Mahto vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 1897; wherein Division Bench of this Court has held as under: “5……………. Under the scheme of the Jharkhand Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, a decree of the Court is binding on the mutation authority. In Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commr. (2007) 6 SCC 186 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “9. Under the scheme of the Jharkhand Tenant's Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, a decree of the Court is binding on the mutation authority. In Suraj Bhan v. Financial Commr. (2007) 6 SCC 186 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: “9. … It is well settled that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. It is settled law that entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only “fiscal purpose” i.e. payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court (vide Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh). ….” (Emphasis supplied) By going through the aforesaid judgement, it is crystal clear that title can only be decided by competent Civil Court and decree of Civil Court is binding upon the mutation authority and as such second issue is also decided in favour of petitioner. 15. So far as ground taken in the impugned order that Majurdubhi Plot No. 735 is notified as protected forest land Under Section 29 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 vide gazette dated 09 July 1958 is concerned; District Forest officer, Purulia has already settled some part i.e. 9.9 acres out of 22.50 acres in the name of father in law of the grandmother of the Petitioner in the year 1948-49 and as such the contention that gazette notification has retrospective effect is also not tenable in the eye of law. 16. It further transpires from the pleadings that Rent for the said plot was regularly paid initially by the original settle and after her demise by father of the petitioner till the year 2014-15 which is evident vide rent receipt dated 17.08.2014 (Annexure-2). 17. So far as the contention of the newly added respondent no 7 is concerned; it relates to the disputed question of fact which has already been decided by the competent Civil Court. 18. 17. So far as the contention of the newly added respondent no 7 is concerned; it relates to the disputed question of fact which has already been decided by the competent Civil Court. 18. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made hereinabove, the impugned order passed by the Circle officer is not sustainable in the eyes of law; as such, the order dated 13.02.2024 (Annexure 6), is hereby, quashed and set side and the 5th Respondent is further directed to enter the name of the petitioner in the Revenue Records and fix the Rent and after payment of the same by the petitioner issue rent receipt in respect of aforesaid land. 19. Consequently, this application is allowed in the manner indicated hereinabove. Pending I.As, if any, also stand closed. However, there is no order as to cost.