Patna High Court
Ramesh PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate title disputes; such matters must be determined by a competent civil court.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of heirs, challenged an order dated 15 September 2025 that rejected their claim to a long‑standing jamabandi in favour of other respondents. They sought quashing of that order, declaration that a revenue report dated 4 July 2024 was null, and a direction that their possession not be disturbed pending a final determination. The court noted that the petitioners had not established their genealogy or the existence of a hukumnama under the Succession Act, and that the revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to decide complex title disputes. Citing Supreme Court authority (Faqruddin v. Tajuddin) and earlier Bihar High Court decisions, the court held that only a competent civil court can determine title to joint family property. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with the parties directed to approach the appropriate civil court for relief.
Issues considered
- The revenue authorities' jurisdiction to alter or cancel a long‑standing jamabandi.
- Whether the order dated 15‑09‑2025 can be quashed on grounds of lack of jurisdiction and sanction.
- The appropriate forum for determination of title and possession of joint family land.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- jamabandi
- mutation
- revenue authority jurisdiction
- title determination
- joint family property
- civil court jurisdiction
- writ petition
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1340 of 2026
======================================================
1. Ramesh Prasad S/o- Late Badlu Prasad, R/o- Vill and P.O- Khajuri, P.S-
Nobatpur, District- Patna.
2. Arun Kumar, S/o- Ram Naresh Prasad, R/o Vill and P.O- Khajuri, P.S-
Nobatpur, District- Patna.
3. Sanjay Kumar, S/o Ram Naresh Prasad, R/o Vill and P.O- Khajuri, P.S-
Nobatpur, District- Patna.
4. Neeraj Kumar, S/o- Late Badlu Prasad, R/o Vill and P.O- Khajuri, P.S-
Nobatpur, District- Patna.
5. Umesh Kumar, S/o Late Badlu Prasad, R/o Vill and P.O- Khajuri, P.S-
Nobatpur, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Commissioner Patna Division, Patna.
3. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Danapur, Patna.
4. The Additional Collector, Patna.
5. The Circle-Officer, Naubatpur, Patna.
Respondent 1st Set
6. Damyanti Devi, W/o Shivbalak SharmaR/o Village and P.O- Khajuri, P.S-
Nobatpur, District- Patna.
7. Phul Kumari Devi @ Ful Kumari Devi, W/o- late Badlu @ Badalu Prasad,
R/o Village and P.O- Khajuri, P.S- Nobatpur, District- Patna.
8. Mahanand Verma, S/o- Vidya Saran Mahto, R/o Village and P.O- Khajuri,
P.S- Nobatpur, District- Patna.
9. Ajit Kumar, S/o- Late Sivlal Verma, Village and P.O- Khajuri, P.S-
Nobatpur, District- Patna.
... ... Respondents 2nd set
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwary, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Subhash Chandra Mishra, SC 16
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 03-02-2026 Heard Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwary, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Subhash Chandra
Mishra, learned SC 16 for the State.
2. Petitioners have inter alia prayed for following
Patna High Court CWJC No.1340 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
2/5
reliefs in the paragraphs No.1 of the writ petition:-
“(i) The jamabandi proceeding under the
present matter may kindly directed to be looked
into/adjudicated in the light of Maya Devi & Ors. (since
reported in 2014(4) BBCJ V-152), and other judicial
pronouncement like Arun Kumar Goenka case (since
reported in 2023(5) BLJ 321) and other similar matter in
the interest of justice.
ii. The answering respondents may kindly be
directed to not disturb the present status of the petitioners’
land in question, in view of the Division Bench order of this
Hon’ble Court passed in Ramowtar Lakhotia Vs. the State
of Bihar & Ors. Case (since reported in 2024(3) BLT 329)
till final adjudication of the matter in hand.
Iii. The order dated 15.09.2025 passed in
connection with jamabandi Case No.130/2024-25
(Annexure 6, Pg. 67) may kindly be quashed, as the same is
not only without jurisdiction so also having no sanction of
law at all.
iv. The report dated 04.07.2024 (Ann. Pg. ) said
to be submitted by Revenue Clerk to the Circle Officer,
Noubatpur, may kindly be declared as nonest in the eye of
law as the same is having no any legal sanctity on the face
of it.
v. Till the settlement of the dispute the
petitioners’ right, title and possession couldn’t be allowed
to disturb in any manner.
vi. Any other relief or reliefs may kindly be
allowed, for which the petitioner be found entitle in the
opinion of this Hon’ble Court.”
3. The brief facts of the case is that the mother of
petitioner no. 1, namely Ful Kuer Devi, had earlier approached
this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 15306 of 2006 seeking
quashing of the order dated 02.09.2006 passed by the
Commissioner, Patna Division, in Mutation Revision Case No.
13 of 1998, which was disposed of on 08.08.2008 with specific
directions and observations; upon non-compliance, a contempt
application being M.J.C. No. 4814 of 2012 was filed, during the
Patna High Court CWJC No.1340 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
3/5
pendency whereof the mutation application was allowed in
favour of Ful Kuer Devi by order dated 18.10.2012 passed by
the Circle Officer, Naubatpur in Jamabandi Case No. 39 of
2009–2010. Thereafter, the said mutation order was challenged
by private respondent nos. 8 and 9 in C.W.J.C. No. 14664 of
2013, which was disposed of on 12.08.2014 directing the Circle
Officer to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. However,
in purported compliance, the Circle Officer, Naubatpur, in a
highly arbitrary and illegal manner, submitted a proposal dated
04.07.2024 to cancel the long-standing Jamabandi running in
the name of the petitioners’ ancestors on the basis of a sketchy
report of the same date, leading the petitioners to prefer JBCA
No. 130/2024–2025 before the Additional Collector, Patna,
which was rejected by order dated 15.09.2025 without proper
consideration of materials on record and by blindly relying upon
selective facts of the private respondents, despite the settled law
that a long-standing Jamabandi cannot be interfered with by the
revenue authorities.
4. The petitioners and respondents no.6 to 9 are
claiming title on the basis of possession of land not described
in the writ petition. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order
dated 15.09.2025 passed in connection with Jamabandi Case
Patna High Court CWJC No.1340 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
4/5
No. 130/2024–25.
5. The petitioners have not disclosed the genealogy
of the family to which they belong, nor they have furnished any
information, as to whether, the Hukumnama for settlement of
the land in question, as claimed in the present writ petition, was
granted to one Phul Kumari Devi, wife of late Badau Prasad,
who belonged to the petitioners’ family of the ex-landlord in
accordance with the provisions of the Succession Act.
6. The question of determination of title in respect of
joint family property can be determined only by the competent
civil court.
7. The Revenue authorities have no power or
jurisdiction to decide the complicated question of title and
possession. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Faqruddin v. Tajuddin, reported in, (2008) 8 SCC 12, in para
no. 44 and 45, held as under:
44. The jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue
being limited, no title could have been conferred upon the
plaintiff. Title in or over a land will depend upon the
statutory provisions. A title does not remain in vacuum. It
has to be determined keeping in view the law operating in
the field viz. religious law or statutory law or customary
law, etc.
45. Revenue authorities of the State are
concerned with revenue. Mutation takes place only for
certain purposes. The statutory rules must be held to be
operating in a limited sense. The provisions of Rule 13 of
the Matmi Rules laying down a rule of primogeniture will
have no application in relation to the offices of
sajjadanashin and mutawalli, which are offices of different
nature. They are stricto sensu not hereditary in nature. It is
Patna High Court CWJC No.1340 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
5/5
well settled that an entry in the revenue records is not a
document of title. Revenue authorities cannot decide a
question of title.
8. Considering the nature of relief as sought for in the
present writ petition and several litigation fought between the
parties, this Court finds that the aggrieved parties may file suit
for determination of their title.
9. The writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the
parties to avail remedy before the competent civil court, having
jurisdiction for determination of their title over the land in
dispute.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U
Checking your session…