Order : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is under Clause 10 of the LETTERS PATENT directed against the order dated 7th May, 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3780 of 2020 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed while coming to the conclusion that the disputed question of facts is involved and the title of the appellants cannot be decided, since the appellants have not produced any document to substantiate their title except the Raiyati Certificate. 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the petition needs to be refer herein which reads as under: The land in question was settled by the ex-landlord to the original petitioner by virtue of Hukumnama. At the time of vesting, return was filed by the ex-landlord namely Kapil Mahto for the land settled in the name of original petitioner. After vesting of the land, the erstwhile Government of Bihar recognized the original petitioner as a tenant. After creation of the State of Jharkhand, the petitioner has paid rent for the land settled to him by the ex-landlord in lieu of grant of rent receipt. The Land Acquisition Officer, Latehar enquired from the Circle Officer, Balumath about the land for development of Tetaria Kharh Coal Project, O.B. Dump. The Circle Officer, Balumath instituted Case Record 1/2009-10 for certification of raiyati interest. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Latehar on the basis of recommendation of the Circle Officer, Balumath made recommendation which is countersigned by Sub- Divisional Officer, Latehar for grant of Raiyati status of the land and the Additional Collector, Latehar on the basis of the said recommendation of the Circle Officer, Balumath, certified Raiyati status of the land and 17 (seventeen) Raiyats including the original petitioner was countersigned by the Deputy Commissioner. On 15.05.2012, the original petitioner made representation to the Project Officer, Tetaria Kharh, Collieries, Balumath that he had given consent to work on his land but no crop compensation was given and demanded compensation and employment. On 15.05.2012, the original petitioner made representation to the Project Officer, Tetaria Kharh, Collieries, Balumath that he had given consent to work on his land but no crop compensation was given and demanded compensation and employment. The Circle Officer, Balumath vide notice dated 05.06.2012 informed the petitioner that the land in question is in “Gaimajarua Khata.” The Government of India, Ministry of Coal vide notification dated 18.08.2015 published in Extra Ordinary Gazette; circulated Public Notice vide Hindi Daily Prabhat Khabar dated 07.09.2015, issued notification under Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 for acquisition of 73.55 hectares of land for coal mining. The grand children of the original petitioner made representation to the Project Manager, OCP Tetaria Kharh, praying therein that they have not received any compensation in lieu of the land in question, hence, they may be given employment as per their educational qualification. A tripartite meeting has been organized in the office of General Manager, Rajhara Area at 10:00 am for extension of Tetaria Kharh Project and ultimately vide the said Annexure10, the benefits Rehabilitation & Resettlement including employment in lieu of the said land was denied on the ground that in Hal Khatiyan, the land in airmaja qbyu etshtieo np ehtaitsi obneeern trheacto rtdheed o arsig “inGal petitirounae rM bayli kr”e. mIt aiisn cinogn tienn dthede possession for a long time, has accrued Raiyati status. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved with the aforesaid has preferred a writ petition being W.P.(C) 3780 of 2020 wherein it has been contended that the original petitioner by remaining in the possession for a long time, has accrued Raiyati status. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent- State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the revenue record, as well as the C.S. Khatiyan show that the land in question is a “Gairmajaruwa Malik” land. 5. The learned writ Court after appreciating the pleading of the parties has dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that as no document of ownership of the land could be produced by the original petitioner except a Raiyati certificate issued by the Additional Collector countersigned by the Deputy Commissioner. 5. The learned writ Court after appreciating the pleading of the parties has dismissed the said writ petition on the ground that as no document of ownership of the land could be produced by the original petitioner except a Raiyati certificate issued by the Additional Collector countersigned by the Deputy Commissioner. The learned writ Court has further observed that since disputed questions of fact involved herein, as such the same can at best be adjudicated in a properly constituted suit but cannot be adjudicated in this petition in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Against the order passed by the learned writ Court the present appeal has been preferred. 7. It is evident from the facts as referred hereinabove that the appellant-petitioner, being aggrieved with the decision of the respondent authorities as appended to Annexure 10 to the writ petition by which the claim of the compensation along with the employment under the R & R policy has been rejected on the ground that the land has been shown in the record of rights as the Gairmajarua Malik . “ ” 8. The State as well as the BCCL have appeared and taken the ground that the nature of the land is Gairmajarua Malik and the same has been acquired by the State in “the year 1962 and t”he part of the land was acquired in the year 2016, therefore the appellants having no title over the land in question, hence it is not a case where the compensation is to be given to the writ petitioners. 9. The learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the aforesaid fact and has rejected the writ petition by giving liberty to file a suit before the competent court of jurisdiction, which is under challenge in the instant appeal. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants has taken the following grounds: (i) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge without taking into consideration the entire document has come out with the conclusion that the disputed question of fact is involved while it is not a case where the disputed question of fact is involved, rather it is a case where the land has been acquired without making payment of compensation, hence the order passed by learned Single Judge needs interference. (ii) The argument has been advanced that although the land acquisition is admitted herein and by virtue of perennial possession on the land in question by the petitioners, they are entitled for the compensation, but the aforesaid fact has also not been taken into consideration by the learned writ Court. 10. The learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that the impugned order needs interference. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the State: 11. While on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as BCCL has taken the following grounds: (i) There is no error in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, since, it is the admitted case of the writ petitioners that no document pertaining to the tile has been produced by them except the Raiyati Certificate. (ii) It has been contended that the Raiyati Certificate cannot be said to be a ground to establish the title and in absence of the title, no order of compensation can be passed. (iii) The acquisition of the particular land has been made in the year 1962 and subsequent part of the land in the year 2016, but no grievance has ever been raised on behalf of the appellants. (iv) The publication of R.S. Khatiyan is presumed to be final u/s 84 of CNT Act and the notification of state government to act upon R.S. Khatiyan supersedes the order of the Deputy Commissioner and views in respect of R.S. Khatiyan and its presumption has been opined, in the light of the verdict of this High Court and notification of the State Government. 12. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that therefore there is no error in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order and it has correctly been said to get the right adjudicated by filing suit before the competent Court of jurisdiction, hence the order impugned needs no interference. Analysis: 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment as also the pleading made in the memo of appeal and the affidavits filed in the instant appeal. 14. This Court before proceeding further needs to refer the admitted fact that Mr. Sudhir Kr. Analysis: 13. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment as also the pleading made in the memo of appeal and the affidavits filed in the instant appeal. 14. This Court before proceeding further needs to refer the admitted fact that Mr. Sudhir Kr. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, in course of the argument, has admitted that no document is there to establish the title in favour of the writ petitioners, but since they are in possession on the land in question for 70 years, hence they are entitled for compensation. 15. This Court, in view of the aforesaid admitted fact, is to consider as to whether on the basis of possession, which itself is being disputed, the amount of compensation can be paid in favour of the writ petitioners? 16. There is no dispute of the fact that the issuance of rent receipts is being shown to be the ground of possession over the land in question. 17. The law is well-settled that Rent receipts are primarily fiscal documents and do not confer title to land. They serve as proof of payment but do not establish ownership or possession rights over the property. This principle is reinforced in catena of judgments, stating that mere issuance of rent receipts cannot create title to the land or prove possession. 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of " 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) 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors (2021) SCC OnLine SC 802, 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. ...." (Emphasis supplied) 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors (2021) SCC OnLine SC 802, 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." 20. Herein the rent receipts admittedly have been issued in favour of the writ petitioners, but the element of actual possession is being disputed by the State and the BCCL, since, as per the BCCL, the mining operation is being carried out over the land in question. 21. The appellants- amount of compwenrsita tipoent iatinodn ethrse’ esmoplel ogyrmoeunntd t oi sb eb pasroedvi duepdo unn dtheer the R & R Policy on the basis of possession over the land in question for the last 70 years. 22. The said argument has been tried to be strengthened on the basis of the Circular dated 12.02.2015 issued by the secretary of State of Jharkhand wherein it has been decided that on the ground of long possession i.e the possession of 30 years, the amount of the compensation is to be paid. However, the issue of possession has been disputed by the respondent-BCCL by taking the ground that the mining operation is being carried out. 23. The question of taking aid of the aforesaid circular has been taken as a new ground, therefore serious objection has been made by the learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the BCCL, by taking the ground that the learned counsel for the appellant is trying to make out a new case which is not permissible in an intra-court appeal. 24. 24. This Court has found substance in the ground as has been raised by the learned counsel for the State and BCCL. 25. Although, the intra-court appeal is the furtherance of the proceeding of the writ court, but since the order which is under challenge is being scrutinized so as to come to the conclusion regarding its legality/illegality, hence it is not available for the litigant concerned, herein the appellants-writ petitioners, to take a new ground by making of totally a new case. 26. The issue can be taken into consideration by the intra-court appeal in view of the fact that the intra-court appeal is the furtherance of the proceeding of the original writ court, but that also depends upon the pleading as pleaded in the memo of appeal. 27. It is settled position of law that if there is no pleading having been taken before the writ court, then it is not available for the party concerned to come out totally with the new case for the purpose of scrutinizing the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the basis of the document which was never been placed before the learned Single Judge for its consideration. 28. If a document would have been there before the learned writ court, the matter would have been different and in that circumstances, the writ court would have considered the said document but that is not the case herein, rather the learned counsel for the appellant has admitted the element of title having not lying with the appellants rather on the basis of the possession, the amount of compensation has been sought to be paid that too on the basis of the aforesaid . However long possession has never been the ground before the learned Single Judge, rather, as would appear from the prayer made in the writ petition that the ground taken on behalf of the writ petitioners before the learned writ court was to make payment of compensation presenting themselves (appellants) to be the title- holder of the land which has been acquired and has been handed over in favour of the BCCL. 29. Now, the ground has been taken of long possession, based upon the said circular. 30. Even, the element of possession has been disputed by the BCCL since the BCCL has come out with the case that mining operation is going on over the land in question. 29. Now, the ground has been taken of long possession, based upon the said circular. 30. Even, the element of possession has been disputed by the BCCL since the BCCL has come out with the case that mining operation is going on over the land in question. 31. This Court, considering the aforesaid factual aspect and if in such circumstances, learned Single Judge has come out with the finding by not adjudicating the issue in exercise of the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of availability of disputed question of fact with an observation to get the issue adjudicated by filing a suit before the competent court of civil jurisdiction, which according to our considered view, cannot be said to suffer from an error. 32. Hence, this Court is of the view that the view taken by learned Single Judge cannot be said to suffer from an error. 33. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. 34. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. I agree, (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)