IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 923 of 2024 Sudhir Chandra Modi ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand, through the Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh 2. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ramgarh 3. The Circle Officer, Patratu, Ramgarh ….. Respondents ----- CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner: Mr. Arbind Kr. Sinha For the Respondents: Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, A.C to G.A-IV ----- 09/26.03.2025 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 01.09.2023 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.1 in Mutation Revision Case No. 19/2023 dismissing the said mutation revision preferred by the petitioner. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 21.12.2022 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.2 in Mutation (Online) Appeal No. 73/2022-23 dismissing the said mutation appeal preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 23.07.2022 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.3 in Mutation Case No. 184 R 27/2022-23 dismissing the said mutation application preferred by the petitioner on the ground that he has not submitted the relevant documents by which the lands of ‘Scheduled Tribe Khata’ as well as ‘Gairmajarua Khata’ were transferred. 2. Reference may be made to the order dated 02.01.2025, which reads as under: ‘’After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment to file a supplementary affidavit bringing on record the order of mutation with respect to the land in question passed by the competent authority in favour of the petitioner’s father. In view of the said prayer, put up this case after two weeks under the same heading.’’ 3. A supplementary affidavit dated 18.03.2025 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, paragraph 3 of which reads as under: ‘’3. That the petitioner made application for certified copy of entire order sheet of Mutation Case No. 4/1973-74 on 17.02.2025. The concerned Clerk informed that the record is not available. Then one rent receipt of the year 1974 was available in the outhouse of the petitioner, which was shown to the Clerk of the Circle Officer’s office. In spite of that, the record of Mutation Case No. 4/1973-74 could not be traced out. Thereafter, the application dated 17.02.2025 with endorsement that the record of Mutation Case No. 4 of 1973-74 was searched by peon of the office, but the same could not be traced out.’’ 4. Since the petitioner has not been able to bring on record a copy of the order of mutation passed by a competent authority in favour of his father, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders. 5. The petitioner is however at liberty to take appropriate recourse before the competent Court of civil jurisdiction with respect to his right, title and possession over the lands in question. 6. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid liberty. Satish/- (RAJESH SHANKAR, J)