ORDER :

1. With consent of the learned counsel for the appellants, hearing of this matter has been done through video conferencing. Learned counsel has not raised any complaint regarding net connectivity or audio-visual quality.

I.A. No. 3269 of 2019

2. This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condoning the delay of 304 days, which has occurred in preferring this appeal.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellants were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

4. Accordingly, the delay of 304 days in preferring the present appeal is hereby condoned and this application stands allowed.

L.P.A. No. 281 of 2019

5. Heard this appeal on the point of admission at this stage with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants-State.

6. This intra-court appeal has been preferred by the appellants-State of Jharkhand assailing the order dated 23.04.2018 passed in W.P. (C) No. 2516 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the sole respondent was allowed and the State was directed to accept the rent from the writ petitioner and issue rent-receipt with respect to the land in dispute.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-State and perused the record of this case.

8. Brief facts, which would be required to be considered in this matter, stand enumerated as under:

“The writ petitioner-sole respondent claims to have purchased a land measuring an area of 26¼ decimals appertaining to R.S. Plot No. 881 of Khata No. 94, P.S. Ramgarh, Thana No. 21, District Ramgarh, by virtue of a registered sale-deed dated 30.07.2011 from one Smt. Kaushalya Devi W/o Mahendra Mandal. A copy of the registered Deed was appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The writ petitioner, after purchase of the aforesaid land, made an application before the Circle Officer, Ramgarh for correction in the Revenue Records and mutation of his name in place of his vendor Kaushalya Devi. The Circle Officer, after making due enquiry, had made necessary correction and mutated the name of the writ petitioner in the Revenue Records and thereafter correction slip and rent-receipt were issued by the competent authority which stand appended as Annexure-2 series to the writ petition. The writ petitioner further claims that he has executed an agreement in favour of one Naresh Thakur and Anil Kumar Sinha for development of the aforesaid land and Power of Attorney has also been given to them authorizing them to take necessary steps for development of the aforesaid property and construction of a building thereupon for which plan has already been sanctioned by the competent authority. It has further been claimed by the writ petitioner that a large sum of money was already invested by the aforesaid persons/Developers towards construction of building but the Circle Officer has stopped granting further rent-receipts due to which the writ petitioner and the Developers/Power of Attorney holders are facing difficulty in getting a loan sanctioned for the said purpose. The writ petitioner claims that the refusal is without any rhyme or reason and such action is wholly arbitrary, vindictive and against the mandate of law.

The respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the connected writ petition, who are the appellant Nos. 3 and 4 in the present appeal, had filed a counter affidavit before the Writ Court taking a stand that Khata No. 94 of Village Murramkalan stands recorded as Jungle Jhari and Gairmazarua land in the Record of Rights. After coming into force of Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950, the said land had vested into the State Government and is exclusive property of the State Government. It has further been stated that the vendor of the writ petitioner, i.e. Kaushalya Devi, did not have any right to transfer the property in favour of the writ petitioner and the rent-receipts claimed to ha