1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 01.02.2002 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramgarh (respondent No.2) in Doubtful Zamabandi Case No. 16/2001-02 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) whereby, the Zamabandi opened in the name of the petitioner has been cancelled and the Zamabandi opened in favour of Raghaw Prasad Gupta has been restored.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

3. The factual background of the case, as appears from the writ petition, is that the ancestors of the petitioner had acquired the land under Khata No.2, Plot Nos. 1305 & 1311, area 1.08 acres (hereinafter referred to as 'the said land') by virtue of “Hukumnama” executed by the erstwhile Zamindar. The ancestors of the petitioner, thereafter, paid rent for the said land to the Zamindar and after vesting, to the Government, till 1974-75. On the basis of the report of Halka Karamchari that the Zamabandi in favour of Seikh Pannu and Seikh Rajju (ancestors of the petitioner) has been illegally created, a proceeding being Case No. 27/95-96 was initiated and finally vide order dated 18.09.1995, the Circle Officer, Ramgarh held that the said land was outside the purview of Doubtful Zamabandi and further the Halka Karamchari was directed to issue rent receipt in favour of the petitioner and, accordingly, rent receipt was issued to the petitioner till 2002. Suddenly the respondent No.3 filed an application before the respondent No.2 challenging the Zamabandi running in the name of the petitioner and thereafter vide order of the respondent No.2, Doubtful Zamabandi Case No. 16/2001-02 was initiated and finally on 01.02.2002, the Zamabandi opened in the name of the petitioner was cancelled and a direction was issued to open a Zamabandi in favour of Raghaw Prasad Gupta (father of the respondent No.3), which gives rise to filing of the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice. It is further submitted that the petitioner came to know about the impugned order only in the month of June, 2008 when the respondent No.3 was trying to sell the said land. It is further submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction to cancel the Zamabandi in absence of initiation of any proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Land Reforms Act, 1950 by the competent authority. It is further submitted that the order dated 18.09.1995 passed in Case No. 27/95-96 was an appealable order, but the respondents did not prefer any appeal before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms and subsequently moved before the Sub-Divisional Officer, which is not tenable in law.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondent submits that the petitioner had wrongly obtained the Government rent receipt in collusion with the Halka Karamchari. It is further submitted that the Circle Officer is not the competent authority to confirm the title of the petitioner, unless and until the same is confirmed by the competent Court of law. The petitioner was within the knowledge of the orders passed by the Court from time to time. The petitioner had the liberty to move before the appropriate Court of law and file appeal, but he has chosen to file the writ petition before this Court, which is not maintainable. The respondent No.2 has the authority to cancel the Zamabandi running in favour of the petitioner.

6. The learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 submits that the father of the respondent No.3 obtained the land under Khata No. 2 Plot Nos. 216, 1299, 1305 & 237, areas 1.74, 0.36, 1.20 & 0.28 respectively in Village-Ramgarh, Thana No. 82, P.S Ramgarh, District-Hazaribagh (now District-Ramgarh) through settlement in the year 1950 from the ex-landlord. Thereafter, the settlee paid rent for the said land to the ex-landlord and after vesting, to the S