JUDGMENT : Deepak Roshan, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for issuance of appropriate writ for quashing of the order dated 10.10.2022, passed by Respondent No. 5 in Mutation Appeal Case No. 192 R15/2022-23 on the ground that the appeal has been allowed without issuance of notice to the Petitioners who are the descendants of the recorded tenants. 3. Mr. Navin Kumar, Ld. Counsel representing the Petitioners submits that the land appertaining to Plot No. 1270 within Khata No. 58, Admeasuring an area of 1.19 acres in Mouza-Chatra, District-Ranchi was recorded in the khatiyan during the revisional survey in the name of one Chaita Mahto S/o Butna Mahto. The petitioners are the heirs of the recorded tenant. Chaita Mahto died leaving behind his 4 sons namely Jagdeo Mahto, Kangu Mahto, Fagua Mahto and Chotan Mahto. It is submitted that there was no family partition between the 4 brothers and they were still in joint possession of the scheduled property having all valid right title and interest. This is evident from the fact that rent receipts are being issued in the name of the Petitioners. The Petitioner has annexed rent receipts up to 17.10.2022 as Annexure-2 of their petition. It is submitted that mutation was never assailed by Respondent No. 7 from 1947 to 2010. However in the year 2010, Respondent No. 7, filed a mutation case being Mutation Case No. 338/R-27/2010-11 through his power of attorney holder. This application was dismissed by Respondent No. 6 vide order dated 2.4.2011. After the dismissal of Mutation Case No. 338/R-27/2010-11, Respondent No. 7 preferred an appeal before Respondent No. 5. This appeal was registered as Mutation Appeal No. 69-R- 15/2011-12. Mutation Appeal No. 69-R-15/2011-12 was disposed off vide order dated 24.4.2012, wherein the order dated 02.04.2011 passed in Mutation Case No. 338/R- 27/2010-11 was set aside and the issue was remanded back to Respondent No. 6. Pursuant thereto Respondent No. 6, vide order dated 10.2.2015 again rejected the mutation application. The order dated 10.2.2015 was again assailed by filing an appeal being Mutation Appeal No. 124-R-15/2015- 16. This appeal was disposed off vide order dated 16.9.2019, wherein the matter was remanded for the second time before Respondent No. 6 for fresh consideration. Pursuant thereto Respondent No. 6, vide order dated 10.2.2015 again rejected the mutation application. The order dated 10.2.2015 was again assailed by filing an appeal being Mutation Appeal No. 124-R-15/2015- 16. This appeal was disposed off vide order dated 16.9.2019, wherein the matter was remanded for the second time before Respondent No. 6 for fresh consideration. However, when no notice was received from the office of the Circle Office, the Petitioner made an enquiry and found that Respondent No. 7 has filed another application for correction of the name in Register-II, which has been registered as Mutation Case No. 945/2021-22. The mutation case was rejected by Respondent No. 6 vide order dated 31.12.2021. No appeal was filed against this order. Thereafter, Respondent No. 7 filed an application, yet again which was registered as Mutation Case No. 1357 R27/2021-22. This application was also dismissed vide order dated 1.5.2022. An appeal was filed by Respondent No. 7 before Respondent No. 5, as against this order which was registered as Mutation Appeal Case No. 192 R15/2022-23. This application was allowed vide order dated 10.10.2022. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Respondent-State has filed a counter-affidavit in WP(C) 3913 of 2015, wherein the Respondent-State has submitted that Respondent No. 7 was not in possession of the scheduled land. He has further submitted that Petitioner No. 3 has constructed a house under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna over the scheduled land which shows that the land is in the possession of the Petitioners. On basis of the above facts, the Ld. Counsel representing the Petitioner contends that the Respondent- State has passed the order dated 10.10.2022 in Mutation Appeal Case No. 192 R15/2022-23 without issuing any notice to the Petitioners and as such the entire proceeding vitiates the principles of natural justice. Further, it is submitted that the impugned order suffers from gross perversity as the Respondent in the counter-affidavit filed in WP(C) 3913 of 2015 has stated that it is the Petitioners who are in possession over the scheduled land and somehow the same officials have given contrary report. 5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent- State of Jharkhand submits that the instant writ may not be entertained as the Petitioners have an alternate remedy of filing a revision against the order of Respondent No. 5 before Respondent No. 4. 5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent- State of Jharkhand submits that the instant writ may not be entertained as the Petitioners have an alternate remedy of filing a revision against the order of Respondent No. 5 before Respondent No. 4. However, instead of exhausting the statutory remedy, the Petitioner has chosen to directly approach this Court. On merits, it has been stated that ancestor of the Petitioners has surrendered the land to the then landlord. The genuineness of the deed was verified through letter number 2695 dated 23.08.2022. In response to the query, the District Sub-Registrar vide letter bearing number 1312 dated 9.9.2022 confirmed the fact that Chaita Mahto has surrendered the scheduled land vide registered deed number 1134. The Respondent-State has also placed reliance upon the written statement filed in a Title Suit where the Petitioners have admitted the execution of surrender of deed in the year 5.2.1947. 6. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 7, Shri Prashant Pallav, submits that vide registered sale deed dated 10.3.1947, the scheduled property was transferred to J.D Berkeley by the then landlord and thereafter the scheduled land was transferred to one Izhar Ali Abbasi on 17.7.1947 from whom the same has been inherited by Respondent No. 7. He has placed heavy reliance on the written statement filed by the Petitioners in Title Suit No. 385 of 2011, wherein the Petitioners have admitted the fact pertaining to the surrender of the scheduled land by their ancestor, namely Chaita Mahto. He submits that admission is the queen of all evidence and owing to the express admission of the Petitioners, they are stopped from opposing the mutation of Respondent No. 7. He submits that as the aforesaid fact was not brought before this Court by the Petitioners themselves, the instant writ petition is fit to be dismissed on the ground that the Petitioners had approached this Court with unclean hands. 7. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the records of the case and the contention of the Petitioners that no notice was issued to them prior to the impugned order being passed by the concerned Respondent. During course of this proceedings; the original record was called for and on perusal of the order sheet, the Court finds the contention of the Petitioners that authority did not issue any notice before passing the impugned order, to be correct. During course of this proceedings; the original record was called for and on perusal of the order sheet, the Court finds the contention of the Petitioners that authority did not issue any notice before passing the impugned order, to be correct. In light thereof, the impugned order offends the principles of natural justice and deserves to be, and accordingly, is hereby, set-side. 8. The matter is remanded back to Respondent No. 5, who, upon the receipt of this order by either parties shall issue notice to the Petitioners as well as the private Respondent and pass a reasoned order, preferably, within a period of 8 (eight) weeks in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case & Respondent authority shall pass the order strictly in compliance of law and applicable Rules & Regulations following principles of Natural Justice. 9. As a result, the instant writ petition stands disposed of in the manner indicated hereinabove. Pending I.As, if any, also stands closed. Parties to bear their own cost.