JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 27.01.2012 passed by learned Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in Misc. Appeal No.06 of 2010 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 13.10.2010 passed by Land Reforms Deputy Collector under Section 4(h) in Case No.26 of 2007-08 has been dismissed. The prayer is also made for quashing of the order dated 13.10.2010 passed by Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad in Case No.26 of 2007-08 whereby he has been pleased to pass an order in respect of Jamabandi No.33 and 62 and has further cancelled the Jamabandi No.237 created in favour of the petitioner pursuant to Mutation Case No.1640 (IX)/2008-09. 3. Mr. Indrajit Sinha along with Ms. Puja Agrawal, learned counsels appearing for the petitioner submits that this writ petition involves a piece of land situated at Khata No.33, Plot No.323, Mouza Gahira, Mauza No.218, Police Station – Govindpur, District – Dhanbad measuring 6.76 acres. He further submits that the said land in question along with other piece and parcel of lands stood recorded in the name of Shri Shri Shyam Chand Jee Thakur, the deity and it was being represented through its “Shebait”, namely Dol Gobindo Goswami and after the death of Dol Gobindo Goswami his only son Jyotindra Mohan Goswami succeeded as a “Shebait” and came into peaceful possession of the lands and begun to perform pooja archana and seva of “deity” and exercise diverse acts of ownership and possession over the land in question and other lands. He then submits that after coming into force of the Bihar LAND REFORMS ACT , 1950, said Jyotindra Mohan Goswami (since deceased) submitted returns in respect of the lands in question along with other properties and applied for fair and equitable rent or ground rent and on the basis thereof a case being Rent Fixation Case No.805 of 1961-62 was initiated before the Certificate Officer, Govindpur, who after making necessary inquiries in accordance with Bihar LAND REFORMS ACT and Rules made thereunder, assessed the rent and issued rent roll in Form ‘M’ in respect of the tracts of land owned and possession by the “deity” being represented through Jyotindra Mohan Goswami (since deceased) including the land in question for a total area of 17.33 acres and thereafter the said Jyotindra Mohan Goswami (since deceased) paid rent for the entire area of land of 17.33 acres including the land in question under Jamabandi No.62. 4. He next submits that the land in question was peacefully held and possessed by the “deity” through its “Shebait” all along without any interference by any person including the State Government and the land in question was held out by the “deity” through its “Shebait” to be in lawful occupation and ownership and after the death of said Jyotindra Mohan Goswami, his son Manik Chandra Goswami succeeded to the office and properties as a “Shebait” and continued to pay rent to the State Government under Jamabandi No.62 which were accepted by the State Authorities. He also submits that respondent No.4, namely, Manik Chandra Goswami was desirous of transferring the lands in question for valuable consideration in order to meet out legal necessity and requirements of expenses and as such, the petitioner being interested in purchasing the land in question approached the respondent No.2 and an agreement to sell was executed on 15.07.2005. 5. He next submits that on 04.10.2007 a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner and consequently registered by the respondent No.4 who was represented through his Power of Attorney holder, namely, Krishna Deo Lal Das and thereafter the petitioner applied for mutation being Mutation Case No.1640(IX)/2008-09 and after making due inquiries by an order dated 19.12.2008/29.12.2008 the petitioner’s name was mutated by opening Jamabandi No.237 in respect of the lands in question and thereafter the petitioner started paying rent. He next submits that thereafter the petitioner was paying rent continuously, however, the petitioner received a notice on 31.07.2010 issued in Form B(II) by the respondent No.2 in purported exercise of powers under Section 4(h) of the LAND REFORMS ACT calling upon him to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be dispossessed from the lands in question and the possession thereof be taken over by the Government. 6. He next submits that the said case was registered as Misc. Case No.26 of 2007-08 and the petitioner filed an objection/show cause on 31.08.2010 pointing out the aforesaid facts and the point was also taken in light of Section 4(h) of the Bihar LAND REFORMS ACT once the aforesaid exercise is made that section is not applicable. He next submits that by order dated 13.10.2010 passed under Section 4(h) of Bihar LAND REFORMS ACT respondent No.2 has been pleased to pass an order in respect of Jamabandi No.33 and 62 and has further cancelled the Jamabandi No.237 created in favour of the petitioner pursuant to Mutation Case No.1640(IX)/2008-09. By way of referring to the order of respondent No.2, impugned herein, he submits that he has observed that in Register II, reference to Plot No.323 and 360 of Khata No.33 Mouza 218 Mouza – Gahira, Police Station – Govindpur has been written by a different ink and no signature is there of the concerned officer in Form ‘M’ and that the collection years mentioned in the receipts were not in sequence. He next submits that the said findings are only on surmises and conjunctures. He also submits that the matter was posted by respondent No.2 on 19.10.2010, however, he has passed an order on 13.10.2010 and the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad which was registered as Appeal No.06 of 2010, however, the appeal was also disposed of and in the appeal learned Deputy Commissioner has wrongly held that “Shebait” has not power to sell the land and pursuant to that Rent Fixation Case No.805 of 1961-62 and Mutation Case No.1640(IX)/2008-09 were liable to be cancelled and the Circle Officer was directed to take possession of the land in question. 7. In the aforesaid background, Mr. 7. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further elaborates his argument by submitting that the orders passed by the respondents are held without jurisdiction and they are liable to be quashed as a long running jamabandi cannot be cancelled in such a way and Section 4(h) of LAND REFORMS ACT not authorizes the authority to adjudicate the issues. 8. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary and Others versus Izhar Hussain reported in (2020) SCC OnLine Jhar 1978 and he refers to paragraph Nos.15, 16 and 19 of the said judgment which reads as under :- 15. This Court, on the basis of aforesaid rival submissions, has found the legal issues about the applicability of the provision of Section 4(h), as under: "Whether in the facts of the case the provision as contained under Section 4(h) of the Bihar LAND REFORMS ACT is made to be applicable and as to whether under the provision of Section 4(h) of the Bihar LAND REFORMS ACT Jamabandi granted in favour of any raiyats can be cancelled" 16. This Court, in order to adjudicate this legal issue deem it fit and proper to go across the preamble of the Bihar LAND REFORMS ACT , 1950, which says that for the transference to the State of the interests of proprietors and tenure-holders in land and of the mortgagees and lessees of such interests including interests in trees, forests, fisheries, jalkars, ferries, hats, bazars, mines and minerals and to provide for the constitution of a Land Commission for the State of Bihar with powers to advise the State Government on the agrarian policy to be pursued by the State Government consequent upon such transference and for other matters connected therewith. The intention behind the proviso to provide for the transference to the State of the interests of proprietors and tenure holders in land and of mortgagees and lessees of such interests as enshrined in the directive principles of our Constitution of India under Articles 39 (B) and 39(C). Section 4 of the Act, 1950 provides consequences of the vesting of an estate or tenure in the State. Section 4 of the Act, 1950 provides consequences of the vesting of an estate or tenure in the State. Sub-section 4(b) thereof says that all rents, cesses and royalties accruing in respect of lands comprised in such estate or tenure on or after the date of vesting shall be payable to the State and not to the outgoing proprietor or tenure- holder and any payment made in contravention of this clause shall not be binding on the State Government. Sub- section 4(h) provides power upon the Collector to make inquiries in respect of any transfer including the settlement or lease of any land comprised in such estate or tenure or the transfer of any kind of interest in any building used primarily as office or cutchery for the collection of rent of such estate or tenure or part thereof, and if he is satisfied that such transfer was made at any time after the 1st day of January, 1946, with the object of defeating any provisions of this Act or causing loss to the State or obtaining higher compensation thereunder the Collector may, after giving reasonable notice to the parties concerned to appear and be heard annul such transfer, dispossess the person claiming under it and take possession of such property on such terms as may appear to the Collector to be fair and equitable; provided that an appeal against an order of the Collector under this clause if preferred within sixty days of such order, shall lie to the prescribed authority not below the rank of the Collector of a district who shall dispose of the same according to the prescribed procedure and further provided that no order annulling a transfer shall take effect nor shall possession be taken in pursuance of it unless such an order has been confirmed by the State Government. It is, thus, evident that Section 4(h) confers power upon the Collector to effect any transfer if such transfer is found to be for the purpose of frustrating the intent and purport of the Act in respect of transfer made any time after 1st January, 1946. The issue pertaining to applicability of provision of Section 4(h) fell for consideration before Patna High Court in the case of Laxman Sahni Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. The issue pertaining to applicability of provision of Section 4(h) fell for consideration before Patna High Court in the case of Laxman Sahni Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1990 (1) PLJR 170 , wherein it has been laid down to the effect that recourse for cancellation of Jamabandi under the Sections can be taken only where any estate or tenure or any part thereof vests in the State. Section 4(h) clothes the Collector with jurisdiction to make enquiries in respect of transfers made any time after 1st January, 1946. Further, in the case of Sri Rama Prasad Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1990 (1) PLJR 165 , it has been held that annulment of settlement made in 1945 on the assumption that it was made within the family to deprive the valuable land is mere presumption. On a plain reading of the provision it is obvious that the Collector while exercising power to make inquiries in respect of any transfer must be satisfied that such transfer was made at any time after 1st January, 1946. No finding recorded that the transfer was made after 1st January, 1946. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector being an adjudicating body could not recommend for such annulment and had to arrive at his own conclusions in terms of Section 4(h) of the Act. 19. Further, even accepting the submission to the effect that the notification dated 24.05.1958 issued by the forest department holding the land as forest land and the fact that there was auction settlement in the year 1933, the question remains that under what authority and jurisdiction notification was issued in the year 1958 without resorting to any provision of law or without getting any declaration invalidating of the proceeding being Auction Certificate Case No. 191 of 1933. Further, the claim of the State-appellant that the land has been recorded as "Gair Abad Malik" but again the question would be that on what basis the land in question was recorded as "Gair Abad Malik" without obtaining reversal of the order passed in Auction Certificate Case No. 191 of 1933. Further, the claim of the State-appellant that the land has been recorded as "Gair Abad Malik" but again the question would be that on what basis the land in question was recorded as "Gair Abad Malik" without obtaining reversal of the order passed in Auction Certificate Case No. 191 of 1933. Further, this Court has found from the record that on the basis of a complaint made by one Niraj Mohan about the illegal transfer of the said land basis upon which a report was called for from the concerned Halka Karamachari, who has submitted a report to the effect that the present raiyats i.e., Izhar Hussain and Akhtar Hussain, are the recorded raiyats of Register-II in Thoka (Lot) No. 1665 which is absolutely correct and proper and thus the application of Niraj Mohan was held to be baseless and false, but the revenue authorities have very surprisingly, without questioning the order passed by the revenue authority in Misc. Case No. 56/2015-16 dated 17.03.2016 wherein it was held that the complaint made by Niraj Mohan is baseless, has again issued a notice upon the writ petitioner and stating the reply of the writ petitioner to be dissatisfactory initiated a proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950, being Misc. (4h) Case No. 110 of 2016-17 wherein again order dated 09.09.2016 was passed, which according to us, cannot be said to be sustainable in the eyes of law without reversal of the order passed on 17.03.2016 passed in Misc. Case No. 56/2015-16. It further transpires from the record that for knowing the genuineness of the order passed in Auction Certificate Case No. 191 of 1933, correspondence was made to the concerned authority at Purulia in the State of West Bengal but without waiting for any report from the concerned authority, the Circle Officer has passed the order dated 09.09.2016, which also casts doubt upon the proceeding initiated by way of filing Misc. (4h) Case No. 110 of 2016-17 and the final order dated 09.09.2016 as if any report was sought for in order to verify the genuineness of the document pertaining to Auction Certificate Case No. 191 of 1933 it was incumbent upon the concerned authority, who was in seisin of Misc. (4h) Case No. 110 of 2016-17 to wait for the outcome of the said report, but having not done so gross illegality has been committed. (4h) Case No. 110 of 2016-17 to wait for the outcome of the said report, but having not done so gross illegality has been committed. It is further settled position of law that Jamabandi once created cannot be annulled. Herein it is admitted fact that Jamabandi can be created under the provisions of Bihar Tenants Holdings (Maintenance of Records) Act, 1973. We have gone across the provisions thereof, as contained in the Act, 1973 and have found that no provision confer upon any authority of the State to cancel the Jamabandi. The question would be that in absence of any power conferred by Statute upon any of the revenue authority can Jamabandi be cancelled. The answer of this question would be in negative as statute confers power upon the authority and the authority can purportedly exercise the power conferred upon it under the statutory power and if any decision is taken in absence of any provision the same would be said to be nullity in the eye of law when found to be without jurisdiction. It is further settled that long running Jamabandi cannot be cancelled, save and except by filing a suit before the competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction, as has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramayan Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2013) 3 PLJR 533 . 9. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that it has been held that there is no provision to confer upon any authority of the State to cancel the Jamabandi. He submits that once the order is having no jurisdiction the order is said to be nullity. He refers to the case of Jagmittar Sain Bhagat and Others versus Director, Health services, Haryana and Others reported in (2013) 10 SCC 136 and he refers to paragraph No.9 of the said judgment which reads as under : 9. Indisputably, it is a settled legal proposition that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior Court, and if the Court passes a decree having no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to nullity as the matter goes to the roots of the cause. Such an issue can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Such an issue can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The finding of a Court or Tribunal becomes irrelevant and unenforceable/ inexecutable once the forum is found to have no jurisdiction. Similarly, if a Court/Tribunal inherently lacks jurisdiction, acquiescence of party equally should not be permitted to perpetuate and perpetrate, defeating the legislative animation. The Court cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the Statute. In such eventuality the doctrine of waiver also does not apply. (Vide: United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1951 SC 230 ; Smt. Nai Bahu v. Lal Ramnarayan & Ors., AIR 1978 SC 22 ; Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studios & Anr., AIR 1981 SC 537 ; and Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar & Ors., AIR 1999 SC 2213 ). 10. Relying on the said judgment, he submits that the authorities lack jurisdiction to pass the said order under Section 4(h) of LAND REFORMS ACT . On these grounds, he submits that the impugned orders may kindly be set aside. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that both the learned Courts have rightly passed the order and there is no illegality in the finding provided in the said impugned orders. He submits that the sale deed was recorded in the name of deity Shri Shri Shyam Chand Jee Thakur and the name of Dol Gobindo Goswami was recorded in the possession column of the cadastral survey khatiyan. 12. He further submits that since Shri Shri Shyam Chand Jee Thakur and Jyotindra Mohan Goswami were “Shebait” and in view of that their name have been recorded and subsequently Manik Chandra Goswami sold the lands belonging to idol deity Shri Shri Shyam Chand Jee Thakur to the petitioner claiming himself to be a “Shebait” by virtue of inheritance after the death of his father Jyotindra Mohan Goswami. 13. He then submits that the said land is recorded as Gair Abad Malik land and is intended for the benefit of locality and in view of that none has got any right to transfer the land. 13. He then submits that the said land is recorded as Gair Abad Malik land and is intended for the benefit of locality and in view of that none has got any right to transfer the land. He next submits that during enquiry it has been found that the name of “Shebait” has fraudulently been entered in the jamabandi after interpolation and over riding in the revenue records and several fabricated documents have also been produced in favour of unscrupulous person in order to fraudulently sell the property of a deity and accordingly the jamabandi was cancelled by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms and the same was rightly confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad. He also submits that there is no doubt that the law is well settled that once the jamabandi is created in a rightful manner in the routine way it cannot be cancelled. He next submits that, however, if the jamabandi is created on the fraudulent exercise and if it is proved the authorities are competent to pass such order. He next submits that the law is well settled and the land is of the government and in view of that the authority concerned is having the power to cancel the same and the petitioner is having the only option to file the suit for declaration of such right. He next submits that once the mutation is done on the basis of a right not based on record and certainly in such cases jamabandi running or standing in the name of particular person it can be cancelled. He refers to the case of Jagdeo Mahto v. The Commissioner, North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh and Others reported in (2009) SCC OnLine Jhar 205 and he refers to paragraph No.22 of the said judgment which reads as under :- 22. According to us if an order is found to have been passed by an authority having no jurisdiction or when such order is found to be absolutely illegal based on the apparent error on law or facts or when it is found to be perverse not based on record then certainly in such cases Jamabandi running or standing in the name of a particular person can be cancelled by a competent authority but of course after giving proper notice and opportunity of hearing to the party who would be adversely affected. It is a settled law that any order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Hasham Abbas Sayyad- versus- Usman Abbas Sayyad & Others, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 355 " in which it has been held as under:- "The core question is as to whether an order passed by a person lacking inherent jurisdiction would be a nullity. It will be so. The principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence or even res- judicata which are procedural in nature would have no application in a case where an order has been passed by the tribunal/court which has no authority in that behalf. Any order passed by a court without jurisdiction would be coram non judice, being a nullity, the same ordinarily should not be given effect to." It has not been pointed out to us that there is any bar under the law in cancelling the Jamabandi running or standing in the name of any particular person. 14. On these grounds, he submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 15. In view of the above facts and submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record including the impugned orders passed by the learned Authorities. In the course of argument, learned counsel appearing for the State has pointed out that the Circle Officer, who has passed the order, has been suspended by the State Government due to mischief done in the office of the said Circle Officer. 16. There is no doubt that Jamabandi has been created in the name of the petitioner as noted in the argument of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner here-in-above. 17. Learned DCLR by passing the impugned order has taken into consideration that the said jamabandi was different and by way of reviewing the same Jamabandi No.62 has been created and further the name of other person has been cut and the name of Jyotindra Mohan Goswami has been inserted and on examining the Form “M” No.805/1961-62 he has found that there is no signature of any Officer and he has found that the said document is not correct. He has also found that the first year of jamabandi is said to be 1995-97 and the receipt is said to be 04.06.1996 and thereafter for the year 1968-69/1982-83 receipt is said to be issued on 03.08.1982 and at the last time on 04.08.1994 for 1982-83 to 1994- 95 receipts have been issued. He also found that the receipt number is not in continuation after 1995-96 and 1996-97 and the year of 1968-69 has been disclosed and in the said Mutation Case No. 1640(IX)/ 2008-09 area is said to be 6 acres only wherein the correct area is 6.75 acres. He has also found that in Register II interpolation has been made with regard to the Jamabandi Nos.33 and 62 and the said is of the year 1961-62 wherein the receipt is of 30.08.1982 and in light of that he has found that Gair Abad land has been purchased for which there is no valid reason and fraudulently the said land has been purchased by the petitioner and in view of that he has cancelled the same considering that the said Gair Abad land has been transferred and purchased by the petitioner fraudulently and he has also recommended for action upon the Circle Officer. 18. There is no doubt that if a long standing jamabandi has been created in accordance with law in a routine manner that cannot be disturbed, however, at the same time, if it is established that there is fraud, misrepresentation or the jamabandi is found created by an order passed without jurisdiction it can be cancelled. 19. Opening of Jamabandi is an administrative in nature that can be reviewed where it is without any order or it has been passed without jurisdiction or ex facie it is collusive or fraudulent in nature. Reference may be made to the case of Yubraj Tiwary and Ors.; vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in (2010) 2 JCR 170 (Jhr). 20. In the case of Abdul Jabbar v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1992 SCC OnLine Pat 22 wherein at paragraph No.4 it has been held as under :- 4. In my opinion as a general proposition it cannot be said Jamabandi once created can never be cancelled. reported in (2010) 2 JCR 170 (Jhr). 20. In the case of Abdul Jabbar v. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1992 SCC OnLine Pat 22 wherein at paragraph No.4 it has been held as under :- 4. In my opinion as a general proposition it cannot be said Jamabandi once created can never be cancelled. In Khiru Gope's case this Court merely has held following the earlier decisions of this Court in Harihar Singh's case and Jamaluddin Ahmad's case that if cancellation of Jamabandi amounts to cancellation of settlement; such power cannot be exercised. However, it may be mentioned that another Division Bench of this court in Gobind Singh v. The State of Bihar, reported in 1978 NOC 88 has held that orders of mutation are administrative orders and thus the same can be reviewed. Unfortunately the aforementioned Division Bench of this Court in Gobind Singh's CaseAIR 1978 NOC 88 was not brought to the notice of this Court deciding Khiru Gope's case. In this situation in my opinion, it cannot be said as a general proposition of the law that a Jamabandi created can never be cancelled. It was reiterated in 2009(2)JCR 153(Jhr) Jagdeo Mahto Vs Commissioner North Chotanagpur Division, Hazaribagh that mutation proceeding is not held before a court of law and are not judicial proceeding but are administrative in nature. Thus, there is no bar under law in cancelling the same. It was held that jamabandi standing in the name of a particular person can be cancelled in appropriate cases, where it is brought to the notice of the revenue authorities that the order of opening of jamabandi is without jurisdiction. Cancellation of jamabandi on the ground of fraud was upheld in Shakuntala Patodia VS State of Jharkhand & Ors., 2015 2 JCR 281 . 21. In light of above judgment, if it is proved that it was created on fraud or in collusion the authority of the revenue officials is competent to revisit and cancel the same. “Fraud” vitiates all proceedings and renders them a nullity. It has been held in the case of “Meghmala & Ors. Vs. G. Narasimha Reddy & Ors.”, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 383 that Fraud is an intrinsic, collateral act, and fraud of an egregious nature would vitiate the most solemn proceedings of the courts of justice. “Fraud” vitiates all proceedings and renders them a nullity. It has been held in the case of “Meghmala & Ors. Vs. G. Narasimha Reddy & Ors.”, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 383 that Fraud is an intrinsic, collateral act, and fraud of an egregious nature would vitiate the most solemn proceedings of the courts of justice. Fraud is an act of deliberate deception with a design to secure something, which is otherwise not due. 22. Coming to the facts of the present case as discussed here- in-above, it is crystal clear that the said land is a Gair Abad land that is of the government land and it was intended for public purpose. Admittedly, the said land was in the name of deity and once land belongs to a deity it cannot be transferred by another person. Furthermore, the manner in which the interpolation was made in Register II as well as Jamabandi as discussed here-in- above in the order of learned Revenue Authorities cannot be denied. 23. So far judgment relied by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the case of State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary and Others versus Izhar Hussain (supra) is concerned that is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. In that case Izhar Hussain and Akhtar Hussain were recorded raiyats of Register-II. In that case, interpolation was not found and in that background said order was passed. In the present case interpolation has been done. 24. The case Jagmittar Sain Bhagat and Others versus Director, Health services, Haryana and Others (supra) relied by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is on the point of jurisdiction. The order of mutation is an administrative nature and that can be revisited and it can be interfered in appropriate cases. In light of the findings of the authorities with regard to manipulation the case of Jagmittar Sain Bhagat and Others versus Director, Health services, Haryana and Others (supra) is also not helping the petitioner. 25. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court finds that no case of interference is made out, as such this writ petition is dismissed. 26. 25. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court finds that no case of interference is made out, as such this writ petition is dismissed. 26. In light of above, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to claim ownership upon the property in question by filing a civil suit in competent trial court and the respondent Government is also entitled to claim their ownership, as and when such suit is filed by this petitioner, in the trial court.