Mr. Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - None appears on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent-State is present.

2. Petitioner has raised grievance that respondent no.4 is not allowing the petitioner any construction over the land relating to Khata no. 38, plot no. 6 measuring an area of 53 decimal of land at Mauza-Kusai, Doranda, Ranchi without any legal and valid basis. It has also sought directions upon the respondents for issuance of rent receipt, which was last issued on 3.5.1993 in respect of the said piece of land.

3. Petitioners claim however is based upon the assertion that the piece of land was settled in the name of Md. Manan Khan son of Asgar Khan in case no. 25/1944-45 by the Collector of Khas Mahal land in the year 1945. Mutation was allowed in the year 1971-72 in Mutation Case No. 12R 27 VIII of 1971-72 and the rent receipts were issued in the name of the petitioner. One settlement appeal no. 24 R 27 VIII of 1968 was also filed before the Additional Collector, Ranchi by the petitioner where under the Additional Collector directed issuance of rent receipt for the land measuring an area of 58 decimal at village Kusai, Thana no. 222, District Ranchi over the portion of R.S. Plot no. 6 under Khata no. 38 in his favour in 1944. According to the petitioner the appeal was allowed. Thereafter, the Circle Officer, Ranchi recorded his name in Register-II in respect of the said plot no. 6 of Khata no. 38 measuring 53 decimals. Petitioner, however is being threatened with forcible eviction, although he has perfect documents and paper over the property. Petitioner has also given notice Under Section 80 of the C.P.C to all the respondents about the claim of his title. Thereafter, he has approached this Court.

4. Respondent no.4 and 5 have filed their counter affidavit so has the respondent no.3, Circle Officer, Sadar, Ranchi. It is the consistent case of the respondents that the land in question of Mauza Kusai, P.S Doranda under Khata no. 38, Plot no. 6 measuring an area of 53 decimal of land stands recorded as Kaiser-e-Hind land in the revisional survey records of right. Photo copy of the khatian is annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.3. It is their case that settlement of Kaiser-e-Hind land before Independence by the Ex Land Lord should not be termed as valid, as a person can transfer his own right and title of the property but not Kaiser-e-Hind land, which was not vested with the ex-land lord. Kaiser-e-Hind is a public land and therefore, Public Land Encroachment Act applies to it. It is also the categorical assertion of respondent no.3 that on examination of Register-II of village Kusai, it has been found that only one rent receipt no. 134204 of the piece of land bearing plot no. 6, area 53 decimals of Khata no. 38 were issued for the period 1977-78 to 1993-94. However the said jamabandi has been suspended by the order of then Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi vide letter no. 1072 dated 26.8.1992 and a proposal for cancellation of the Jamabandi has been sent vide case no. 1 of 1993-94 and the necessary entries to that effect have been made in the Register-II. It is further stated that there is no reference for opening of the said jamabandi of land in question.

5. Learned Sr. S.C.I appearing on behalf of the State submits that the said jamabandi has been created without obtaining order of the competent authority in connivance with then Revenue Karmachari. Photo copy of the Register-II is annexed as Annexure-C. It is also asserted that the land being Kaiser-e-Hind and jamabandi having been created illegally in Register-II in the name of Manan Khan and Jainul Haque, the same has been suspended and necessary action for cancellation has already been taken. Learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to the order passed in W.P.C. No. 4912 of 2008 in the case of Zainul Haque & another v. State of Jharkhand & others enclosed as Annexure-D to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.4 and 5 relating to the same subject matter where they sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with a liberty to file a proper civil suit before the competent Court of law. Such permission was granted vide order dated 19.12.2009 and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. It is submitted that on one name or the other, the same claim is being raised through different writ petition in respect of the piece of land over which petitioner cannot establish their claim, ownership and title. In such circumstance, their remedy does not lie before the Writ Court. However, it is up to them to raise their claim before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for declaration of right, title and interest on such disputed question .

6. In the relevant matrix of facts noticed from the pleadings on record, it does lead to the conclusion that the remedy of the petitioner does not lie before this Court in the matter relating to disputed questions of right, title and interest over the piece of land claimed by him. Respondents have categorically asserted also about the land being Kaiser-e-Hind land and that jamabandi relied upon by the petitioner was illegally created and steps were being taken for cancellation of the same.

7. In such circumstance, the writ petition is dismissed, however with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction, if so advised. However, the observations made herein above shall not prejudice the parties in any such proceeding.