ORDER : Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 27.08.2015 passed by learned Additional Collector, Dhanbad by which application for re-continuance of their jamabandi and acceptance of rent in their names has been turned down. Prayer for consequential relief of the earlier orders, passed by which the jamabandi was cancelled, have also been sought for in the present case. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners that the land situated in Mauza No. 129, Khata No. 243/10, Khewat No. 1, Plot No. 932/1043 in Village Jiyalgadha, District Dhanbad measuring area 14.48 acres was the ‘khas dakhli’ land of landlord-Raja Late Thakur Chandr Mohan Singh and belongs to Nagar Kiyari Raj Estate Govindpur. The property devolved on Thakur Ras Bihari Singh who settled the land to Pahlan Miyan vide Hukumnama and the vendor of the petitioners purchased the said land by registered deed No. 121 dated 06.01.1982 from the heirs and descendants of Pahlan Miyan. The petitioners claim to have purchased the land through different sale deeds bearing sale deed No. 121 dated 06.01.1982, sale deed No.1230 dated 01.02.1982, sale deed No. 1231 dated 01.02.1982 and sale deed No. 1232 dated 01.02.1982. 3. The lands so purchased were duly mutated and the relevant entries were made in Register-II. 4. The jamabandi running in the name of the petitioners was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad vide order dated 04.03.1983 and consequently, the petitioners filed Title Suit No. 18/1991 and 20/1991, which were decreed vide judgment dated 06.08.1992 and 09.12.1992. 5. Despite the judgment and decree pronounced in favour of the petitioners, the name of the State of Bihar continued in the Survey Record of Rights and consequently, the petitioners filed a petition under Section 87 of the CHOTANAGPUR TENANCY ACT after the final publication of the record of right. The case bearing No. 24/2001 was registered which was decided in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 03.06.2008. 6. The case bearing No. 24/2001 was registered which was decided in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 03.06.2008. 6. In the teeth of order passed by civil as well as revenue courts, a fresh proceeding for cancellation of jamabandi was initiated and vide order dated 04.03.2010, the DCLR, Dhanbad and SDO, Dhanbad passed joint order recommending the cancellation of jamabandi on the basis of which the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad cancelled the jamabandi on 29.06.2013, which is under challenge before the instant writ petition. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that despite the orders passed both by the Civil Court and the Revenue Court in favour of the petitioners, the long running jamabandi was cancelled and the petition for re-continuance of the old jamabandi has been turned down. Neither the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit Nos. 18/1991 and 20/1991 nor the final order passed in Case No. 24/2001 under Section 87 of the CNT Act was assailed by the State and consequently they attained finality. 8. It is argued by learned counsel for the State that this petition has been filed on behalf of the power of attorney holder but a declaration to that effect has not been made in the affidavit which is required and, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable in view of ratio laid down by the Allahabad High Court in 2016 SCC OnLine All 175 (Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi Vrs. Hasan Raza Khan & Ors.) , wherein it has been held as under: “ 25. Having held so, we must, at the same time, emphasize the necessity of observing adequate safeguards where a writ petition is filed through the holder of a power of attorney. These safeguards should necessarily include the following: (1) The power of attorney by which the donor authorises the donee, must be brought on the record and must be filed together with the petition/application; (2) The affidavit which is executed by the holder of a power of attorney must contain a statement that the donor is alive and specify the reasons for the inability of the donor to remain present before the Court to swear the affidavit; and (3) The donee must be confined to those acts which he is authorised by the power of attorney to discharge. 26. 26. For these reasons, we hold and have come to the conclusion that the question referred for adjudication before the Full Bench must be answered in the affirmative and is accordingly answered, subject to due observance of the safeguards which we have indicated above.” 9. It is further argued by learned counsel for the State that in the judgment passed in Title Suit Nos. 18/1991 and 20/1991 delivered on 06.08.1992 and 09.12.1992 respectively, there was a specific direction for opening jamabandi in the name of the petitioners/plaintiffs and the petitioners had alternative remedy for filing an execution case after their names were not showing to enter. At no point of time, the Executing Court moved for execution of the said order and straightway this writ petition has been filed. 10. It is further argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the State that the petitioners had an alternative remedy to file revision before the Commissioner. 11. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and considering the materials on records, it is apparent that the petitioners through their power of attorney holder have preferred this writ petition. 12. Being aggrieved by the cancellation of jamabandi, Title Suit No. 18/1991 was filed for declaration that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in cancelling the jamabandi, opened in the name of plaintiffs, was illegal and without jurisdiction and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in possession of the said land and also to accept rent for opening jamabandi, with respect to Mouza Jealgora No. 129, Khata No. 10, Plot No. 1043, District Dhanbad, measuring total area of 3.0 acres and 5/3 decimal of land, out of total 1/3 rd share on 9.05 acres. 13. Another Title Suit No. 20/1991 was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction of the suit property with respect to Mouza Jealgora No. 129, P.S. Govindpur, Khata No. 10, Plot No. 1043, Dist.-Dhanbad, measuring total area 8.1 6/3 acres, out of area of 18.50 acres. 14. Both the suits were decreed in favour of the petitioners and it attained finality as no appeal/revision was preferred. 15. It is also evident that when the entries were not made in the revisional survey record of rights, the petitioners preferred Case No. 24/2001 under Section 87 of the C.N.T. Act which was also decided in their favour and it also attained finality by order dated 03.06.2008. 16. 15. It is also evident that when the entries were not made in the revisional survey record of rights, the petitioners preferred Case No. 24/2001 under Section 87 of the C.N.T. Act which was also decided in their favour and it also attained finality by order dated 03.06.2008. 16. Despite the specific order by the Civil Court and the Revenue Court, the mutation is being denied by taking plea which are peripheral in nature. 17. So far, the plea that the writ petition has been filed by the power of attorney holder of the petitioners without hearing an affidavit regarding it, on perusal of the cause title of the writ petition, it is evident that there is explicit declaration that the petitioners are represented through their registered power of attorney holder Bhola Saw. It is true that in the affidavit, sworn by said Bhola Saw, it has not been specifically mentioned that he was power of attorney holder, but I find weight in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that it was a typographical error in nature and did not go to the root of the matter, since such a declaration was made in the cause title of the writ petition, and therefore it will not come in way in hearing the writ for substantive justice. 18. The plea as taken in the counter affidavit that earlier jamabandi was obtained on the basis of forged documents, is not sustainable after the judgment passed by the Civil Court as well as Revenue Court. 19. With regard to the plea raised on behalf of the State that the petitioners failed to move the Executing Court, I find that the plea is hardly impressive for the reason that there is no prayer for recovery of possession and the suit was declaratory in nature against the entries made. Execution cases are not usually passed in cases of declaratory decree. Having contested in one of the cases having appeared in the said case, it was incumbent on the part of the authority concerned to have complied with the order instead of raising this plea at this stage. 20. The impugned orders being unsustainable are, accordingly, set aside. It will be a travesty of justice to drove the petitioners after eight years of filing of the writ petition to seek alternative remedy when the order itself is clearly unsustainable. Writ petition stands allowed. 20. The impugned orders being unsustainable are, accordingly, set aside. It will be a travesty of justice to drove the petitioners after eight years of filing of the writ petition to seek alternative remedy when the order itself is clearly unsustainable. Writ petition stands allowed. The respondents are directed to open jamabandi as per the order passed by the Civil Court as well as the Revenue Court, within three months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.