JUDGMENT : 

Rajesh Shankar, J

1.The present appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 22.12.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1615 of 2017 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners/appellants.

2. Learned Sr. counsel for the appellants, in course of argument of the present appeal, has pressed an interlocutory application being I.A No. 3692 of 2026 seeking substitution of the respondent No.5, namely, Vishwanath Baidh by his legal representatives.

3. This Court vide order dated 06.07.2026, has allowed the said interlocutory application by observing as under:-

“2. Under a mistake of fact, W.P.(C) No. 1615 of 2017 was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on merits vide order dated 22.12.2025 without noticing that 5th respondent i.e. Vishwanath Baidh had expired on 23.07.2022.

3. In this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellants (original petitioners) have applied for substitution of Vishwanath Baidh by his legal representatives. This is vide I.A. No. 3692 of 2026.

4. Mr A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appears on behalf of the legal representatives of Late Vishwanath Baidh, pursuant to notice issued by this Court. He states on instructions that he has no objection, if this I.A. is allowed and the legal representatives are brought on record and permitted to continue the proceedings. He submits that even a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the proposed legal representatives.

5. Considering the above, this I.A. is allowed, the legal representatives of Late Vishwanath Baidh are permitted to come on record of the writ petition as well as this appeal. In short, the legal representatives, are now permitted to represent the estate of Late Vishwanath Baidh.

6. Amendments to be carried out forthwith.

7. Mr. Sahani has filed Vakalatnama and consequently waives service on behalf of the legal representatives.

8. This I.A. is disposed of, in the above terms.”

4. Learned Sr. counsel for the writ petitioners/appellants submits that a portion of land under Khata No. 36, Plot No. 1355, measuring an area of 19.60 Acres and Plot Nos. 839 & 842, measuring an area of 05.19 Acres (total 24.79 Acres), situated at Village-Kabilasi, P.S & Circle-Daru, District-Hazaribagh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said land’) was settled in favour of the ancestors of the appellants long ago and since then they are in peaceful possession of the same. The said part of land was also mutated in favour of the ancestors of the appellants by issuing rent receipts in their favour by the competent authority.

5. It is further submitted that Late Vishwanath Baidh (original respondent No.5) made an application dated 02.10.2015 to the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi claiming himself to be the owner of the said land. In response to the said application, the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand issued Letter No. 1314 dated 9.10.2015 requesting the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh (the respondent No.3) to direct the Circle Officer, Daru (the respondent No.4) to issue rent receipt with respect to the said land in favour of the original respondent No.5. Thereafter, the respondent No.3, vide letter as contained in Memo No. 2582 dated 16.10.2015, directed the respondent No.4 to issue rent receipt of the said land in favour of the original respondent No.5 and to submit compliance report within three days. Accordingly, the respondent No.4 initiated a proceeding being Misc. Case No. 2 of 2015-16 and vide order dated 16.10.2015, directed the ‘Halka Karamchari’ to issue rent receipt of the said land in favour of the deceased respondent.

6. It is further contended that the order dated 16.10.2015 was passed by the respondent No.4 without serving any notice upon the appellants and as such the said order was in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. The appellants and other villagers having come to know about the said fact, made a joint representation dated 06.01.2016 to the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Re