1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the issuance of rent receipts for the land in question in favour of one Karma Lohar.

3. The factual matrix of the case as stated in the writ petition is that 54 decimals of land under Plot No. 533, Khata No. 71, VillagePirra was recorded in the name of Makeshwar Ram Dubey in the khatiyan. The said land was registered in favour of one Bucca Lohar as adhbataidar. After the abolition of jamindari, the recorded raiyat took possession of the land from Bucca Lohar, filed return and the rent was fixed in favour of Late Makeshawer Ram Dubey in Case No. 1065 R-08 1953-56. Thereafter, the recorded raiyat came in possession of the land in question and the petitioner being the legal heir of said Late Makeshwar Ram Dubey is in peaceful possession of the land in question since 1956. The son of adhbataidar Karma Lohar filed an appeal being Appeal No. 11 R-15 1964-65 against the order of the Circle Officer before the Additional Collector, Ranchi. The aforesaid appeal was rejected vide order dated 01.03.1966 as not maintainable. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent no. 4 has been harassing the petitioner by repeatedly filing cases under Section 144 Cr.P.C. on frivolous grounds and the SubDivisional Magistrate, Ranchi repeatedly intervened in the matter and decided the case in favour of the petitioner. The respondent no. 4 also filed a title suit for the same land being Title Suit No. 188 of 2005 and the same is pending in the court of Munsif, Ranchi and during pendency of the suit, the Circle Officer, without issuing any notice or initiating any proceeding, issued rent receipts in favour of Karma Lohar. The petitioner also came to know that the successor of Karma Lohar by virtue of registered saledeed dated 04.10.2004 sold the land in question in favour of respondent no. 4 and one Jahir Ansari. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 3 may be restrained from issuing rent receipts in favour of Karma Lohar.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 submits that the respondent no. 4 has purchased the land in question by the successor of Karma Lohar by virtue of saledeed dated 04.10.2004 which was sold in favour of respondent no. 4 and one Jahir Ansari. The learned counsel further submits that the respondent no. 4 has already filed a suit for declaration of title over the plot in question being Title Suit No. 188 of 2005 which is pending in the court of Munsif, Ranchi and, therefore, the respondent no. 4 is the lawful owner of the plot in question. The respondent no. 3 has rightly not entertained the intervention of the petitioner in the revenue records.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent-State while relying upon the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 submits that the land of VillagePirra, P.S.Ranchi (now Ratu), P.S. No.93, Khata No.71, Plot No. 533, Area54 decimals under Khewat No. 2/8 stands recorded in the name of Bucca Lohar, S/o Charku Lohar as Kaimi. The name of the landlord as mentioned in the Khatian is Makeshwar Ram Dubey. The jamabandi of the land in question has been created in the name of Karma Lohar, S/o Bucca Lohar and Shiodhan Lohar as well as Ram Charan Lohar, sons of Mohan Lohar in the RegisterII, Vol.I, Page No.73 mentioning the reference of Case No. 45 R 8 of 1960-61. It has been mentioned in the RegisterII that rent from 1984-85 to 2003-04 has been realised from the raiyats of the Register-II. It is further submitted that the jamabandi of land in question is running in the name of Karma Lohar, S/o Bucca Lohar and Shiodhan Lohar as well as Ram Charan Lohar, sons of Mohan Lohar. The jamabandi in the name of the purchasers Shajjad Khan (respondent no. 4) and Jahir Ansari has not been created in the Register-II.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the relevant documents