1. This letters patent appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition, filed by the appellant herein.

2. The facts, in short, leading to the present appeal are that the petitioner had filed W.P.C. No. 5520/2003 for quashing of Annexure-9 to the present appeal, i.e., the order dated 20th February, 2003, passed in Mutation Appeal No. 39/2000-01, whereby the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner against the order dated 23.8.1996 passed by the Circle Officer, Jugasalai, Jamshedpur, in Mutation Case No. 298/1994-95 rejecting his prayer for mutation, was dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

3. According to the writ petitioner, on 19.2.1998 he purchased plot Nos. 4861, 4862, 4823, 3032, 3027 and 2382 corresponding to new plot Nos. 2577 (P), 2578, 2580 and 2581 measuring 4.81 acres standing on R.S. Khata No. 71, Khewat No. 1 situated in Mauza Kalimati within Sidhgora Police Station, Jamshedpur and was coming peaceful possession of the same.

4. He filed a Title Suit No. 107/1988 against Swarn Singh and others for declaration of right, title and interest over the aforesaid plot of lands and also for restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. The said Suit was decreed ex-parte on 29.7.1989 from the Court of Additional Munsif. Thereafter, an execution case was filed by him for execution of the ex-parte decree in which the objection was filed by the TISCO but the said objection was rejected by the executing Court on 14.2.1990 against which the TISCO filed Civil Revision No. 62/1990, which was also dismissed on 9.4.1990. The petitioner thereafter, filed an application before the Circle Officer, Jugasalai for mutation of his name, which was registered as Mutation Case No. 298/1994-95. The Circle Officer, by order dated 23.8.1996 rejected the prayer of the writ petitioner for mutation. The said order of the Circle Officer was challenged by the petitioner in appeal in Mutation Appeal No. 39/2000-01 before the Deputy Commissioner, who vide his order dated 20th February, 2003, contained in Annexure-9 to the present appeal, dismissed the appeal and then the petitioner filed the writ application before this Court challenging the said order passed by the Circle Officer as well as the Appellate Authority.

5. TISCO, the respondent No. 4 in the writ petition, as wall as the State seriously contested the claim of the writ petitioner and disputed that the petitioner was not in possession of the lands in question,

6. In course of hearing the learned Single Judge by dated 23.3.2007 directed the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, to conduct an enquiry and submit report as to who was in possession of the lands in question. Pursuant to the said order the enquiry report was submitted before the writ Court, which has been annexed as Annexure-12 to the present appeal.

7. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties and after perusing the enquiry report, submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, and after noticing the fact that the lands in question was recorded in survey as "Un-Aabad Malik" held that since there was serious dispute with regard to the possession of the petitioner and found that the petitioner was not in possession of the lands in question and, therefore, refused to give any relief to the petitioner and consequently, dismissed the writ petition.

8. Mrs. Ritu Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that in the enquiry report (Annexure-12) nowhere it is mentioned that the present appellant is not in possession over the lands in question and, therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the lands claimed by the petitioner were not in his possession, is not based on record. It was further argued that when the appellant was having the decree of a competent Civil Court and when the objection of the TISCO was rejected in the execution proceeding then there was no reason not to allow the prayer of the petitioner for mutation of hi