R. Banumathi, J.

These L.P.As are preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in writ petitions nos. 934/2011, 946/2011 and 940/2011, setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, in Mutation Revision Nos.63, 64 and 65 R15/2009-10 dated 16.11.2010.

2. Since all L.P.As arise out a common judgment, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The case of the respondent-writ petitioner:- One Lal Harak Nath Shahdeo, ex-landlord, was holding different pieces of land comprising of Mouza – Hazam, Thana No.281 and Mouza – Kharsidag, Thana No.326.. The ex-landlord, Lal Harak Nath Shahdeo, through his grandson and duly constituted power of attorney holder, namely, Kisto Kali Nath Shahdeo, granted permanent raiyati settlement in favour of one Dr. Shiv Shankar Sahay Srivastava by registered deed of permanent settlement dated 9.9.1947. On the basis of the aforesaid settlement, the said Dr. Shiv Shankar Sahay Srivastava came in possession of the land and paid rent to the ex-landlord against the grant of rent receipts and there was family partition in the family of Dr. Shiv Shankar Sahay Srivastava by a partition deed dated 6.8.1971 and land settled in favour of Dr. Shiv Shankar Sahay Srivastava was partitioned amongst his seven sons, namely, (1) Gauri Shankar Sahay, (2) Ravi Shankar Sahay, (3) Tara Shankar Sahay, (4) Hari Shankar Sahay, (5) Vinay Shankar Sahay, (6) Prem Shankar Sahay and (7) Bipin Bihari Sahay.

4. As per the share allotted to the aforesaid seven sons, a Mutation Case No.52R27/1976-77b was filed and by the order dated 11.10.1976, the then Circle Officer allowed mutation in separate names showing mutation granted in favour of seven sons of Dr. Shiv Shankar Sahay Srivastava. Out of the seven sons, Gauri Shankar Sahay, Tara Shankar Sahay and Vinay Shankar Sahay sold 13.72 acres of land to one Sharad Kumar Modi by terms of registered sale deed dated 28.6.1995. Thereafter Sharad Kumar Modi applied for mutation, which was allowed by the order dated 20.3.2003. The writ petitioner purchased the lands, which are the subject-matter in issue, by three sale deeds dated 3.1.2008. The writ petitioner-respondent filed three applications for mutation and by the order dated 31.3.2008, the Circle Officer allowed mutation application with respect to the land under Khata No.48 and rejected mutation application in respect of the land under Khata Nos. 45, 75 and 85.

5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Circle Officer, the writ petitioner-respondent filed Mutation Appeals before the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ranchi, (hereinafter called as LRDC). By the order dated 1.7.2008, the LRDC set aside the order passed by the Circle Officer and mutation was allowed in favour of the respondent with respect to the Khata Nos.75, 85 and 45, i.e. with respect to 41 acres of land aforesaid.

6. During the course of enquiry conducted with respect to mutation of 41 acres of land in favour of the respondent, various illegalities and irregularities came to light and the Circle Officer filed Mutation Revision Nos.63, 64 and 65 R15/2009-10 before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. By the order dated 17.2.2010, the Deputy Commissioner admitted the revision applications, staying the order of LRDC dated 1.7.2008. Challenging the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the writ petitioner-respondent filed W.P (C) Nos.2693, 2715 and 2713/2010. The said writ petitions were disposed of directing the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the revision applications of the respondent at an early date. Thereafter the Deputy Commissioner allowed the revision applications and set aside the order dated 1.7.2008. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, the writ petitioner-respondent filed three writ petitions being W.P (C) No.934, 940 and 946/2011.

7. The appellant-State of Jharkhand filed counter affidavit and supplementary counter-affidavit contending that the writ