Patna High Court
Awadhesh PandeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The Court held that the Circle Officer acted without jurisdiction in recommending cancellation of the Jamabandi, and therefore the memo dated 02‑06‑2021 was quashed.
Summary
The petitioner, an army Naib Subedar, sought a writ directing the State of Bihar to protect his possession of land allotted under the 1972 Welfare Scheme and to restrain authorities from cancelling his Jamabandi. The State argued that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedy under Section 4 of the Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act, 2009 and that the Circle Officer’s recommendation to cancel the Jamabandi was lawful. The Court examined whether the Circle Officer had jurisdiction to recommend cancellation without addressing the jurisdictional fact and whether the land settled under the welfare scheme fell within the ambit of Section 9(11) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011. Finding that the Circle Officer acted without authority and that the petition was premature, the Court quashed the memo dated 02‑06‑2021 recommending cancellation. The writ petition was consequently disposed of, with directions to the Additional Chief Secretary to educate Circle Officers.
Issues considered
- Whether the Circle Officer had jurisdiction to recommend cancellation of the Jamabandi without considering the jurisdictional fact.
- Whether the land settled under the 1972 Welfare Scheme is subject to Section 9(11) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011.
- Whether the petitioner must first avail the remedy under Section 4 of the Bihar Land Dispute Resolution Act, 2009 before approaching the High Court.
- Whether the order dated 02‑06‑2021 recommending cancellation is liable to be set aside.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 — s. 9(11)
Subjects
- land settlement
- welfare scheme
- army personnel
- jurisdiction
- circle officer
- Jamabandi
- writ of certiorari
- Bihar revenue law
- land mutation
- land dispute resolution
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15455 of 2021
======================================================
Awadhesh Pandey Son of Late Hari Krishna Pandey Resident of Village-
Basuhari, P.O.-Balua, P.S. Guthani, District-Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Collector, District-Siwan.
3. The Additional Collector, District-Siwan.
4. The Additional Collector-Cum-District Public Complain Redressal, District-
Siwan.
5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, District-Siwan
6. The Deputy Collector
7. The Anchal Adhikari, Anchal Guthani, District-Siwan
8. The Superintendent of Police, District-Siwan
9. THe S.D.P.O. Siwan, District-Siwan
10. The Officer-In-Charge, Police Station-Guthani, District-Siwan
11. Aditya KUmar Pandey RTd. Colonel, Son of Late Gauri Shankar Pandey,
Resident of Village-Balua, P.S. Gughani, District-Siwan (Bihar).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Cravi Shankar Sahay, Advocate
Mr.Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Mr.Abhishek Singh Rathore, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Md. Khurshid Alam (Aag12)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-02-2026
Heard Mr. Ravi Shankar Sahay along with Mr. Rakesh
Kumar Mishra and Mr. Abhishek Singh Rathore, learned
counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Ravi
Bhushan Bharat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent no.11 and Mr. Asif Kalim, learned AC to AAG 12
for the State.
2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ
petition has sought inter alia following relief(s), which is
Patna High Court CWJC No.15455 of 2021 dt.02-02-2026
2/9
reproduced hereinafter:-
“I. For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs,
direction/directions commanding the respondents to
ensure and provide all the protection to the petitioner
against the settlement of the land in his favour the details
of which stated ahead through settlement case
no.01/1990-91 under the scheme of the government for
army personnel.
II. For issuance of the further appropriate writ
directing the authority prohibiting them to interfere with
the rightful title and possession of the petitioner over the
land which was settled to him through settlement case
no.1/1990-91 after following the due process of the law
under the scheme by the government for the army men.
III. To prove the appropriate relief as it
deemed fit and proper under facts and circumstances of
the case.”
3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner, who
is an Army personnel holding the rank of Naib Subedar, was
allotted 5 Kathas and 2 Dhurs of land, appertaining to Khata No.
193 and Survey Plot No. 68, in respect of which he is seeking a
declaration of his lawful possession, which was settled in his
name.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in peaceful possession
of the said land and has been regularly paying rent fixed by the
revenue authority after the settlement had been made in his
favour in accordance with the Welfare Scheme of the
Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, dated 14th/16th
August, 1972, communicated vide Letter No. 4( Annexure
Patna High Court CWJC No.15455 of 2021 dt.02-02-2026
3/9
“P/13” to the writ petition).
5. Learned counsel further submitted that the
petitioner is aggrieved by the illegal and arbitrary actions of
Private Respondent No. 11, who has repeatedly interfered with
and disturbed the peaceful possession of the petitioner,
purportedly on the basis of Letter No. 380 dated 02.06.2021,
issued by the Circle Officer, Siwan, and addressed to the District
Magistrate, Siwan and on the basis of application made by the
Circle Officer, Jamabandi Case No.01/2021-22 has already been
instituted. The description of the land is as follows : -
iz”uxr Hkwfe losZ [kfr;ku ds vuqlkj xSjet#vk ekfyd dj ds ntZ gS] ftldk
fooj.k fuEu izdkj gS%&
ekStk Fkkuk [kkrk ua0 losZ ua0 jdok tekcanh ua0
clqgkjh 106 193 68 0&5&2 94
clqgkjh 106 135 465 0&3&7 vo/ks’k ik.Ms;
(dqy jdok 0&8&9)
6. Learned counsel further submitted that the action of
the Circle Officer and the Additional District Magistrate is not
sustainable in the eye of law, inasmuch as, the land settled under
the Welfare Scheme of the year 1972 cannot be subjected to
proceedings under Section 9(11) of the Bihar Land Mutation
Act, 2011, nor under Rule 14 framed thereunder.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner is also aggrieved by the statement and the
Patna High Court CWJC No.15455 of 2021 dt.02-02-2026
4/9
information contained in Paragraph No.8 of the counter
affidavit, which are re-produced hereinafter as follows : -
“8. That the petitioner has not produced
settlement parcha as a proof of completion of settlement and
instead is relying on creation of Jamabandi to support
settlement in his name.
(i) The petitioner has filed ordersheet of land
settlement case no.01/1990-91 as (Annexure 3 to the writ
petition). The then C.O., Guthni vide order dated 30.06.1990
and then Additional Collector vide order dated 19.03.1997
have mentioned about non receipt of objection to the
settlement.
(ii) But the record shows that objection had bee
filed by Gauri Shankar Pandey firstly on 4.9.1997 and
thereafter on 13.07.1998.
(iii) The private respondent no.11 claimed that
the respondent authorities neither issued notice of
settlement proceeding to heirs of ex-land lord nor took note
of aforesaid objections.
(iv) The objector Gauri Shankar Pandey came
from the family of ex-land lord claiming the land in his own
right and raised dispute against the settlement. The
departmental circular prohibited settlement of disputed
land.
(v) The petitioner wrongly claimed to be a land
less person. The petitioner has got settlement of more than
20 decimal land in Survey No.68 as Sahan which is in
excess of 12 decimal i.e. fixed limit under departmental
circular for which government sanction was necessary.
(vi) The petitioner tried to grab Survey No.67
which is a government land.
(vii) The settlement was based on defective
Khatiyan which did not contain entries in column 4.
(viii) The settlement proposal was based on
wrong inquiry report.
(ix) The petitioner got settlement of Survey
No.68 for construction of house which was never
constructed.
(x) The petitioner has proceed settlement in
violation of government policy/rules.
From the foregoing facts, it is apparent that the
petitioner is not entitled to claim protection of his
settlement. In fact, the petitioner has pleaded disputed facts
which shall be duly inquired into and considered by the
competent authority in settlement cancellation case and
therefore this writ petition is premature and lack bona fide.”
8. Per contra, Mr. Asif Kalim, learned counsel
Patna High Court CWJC No.15455 of 2021 dt.02-02-2026
5/9
appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the petitioner has
filed the present writ petition without availing the statutory
remedy provided under Section 4 of the Bihar Land Dispute
Resolution Act, 2009 (hereinafter to be referred to as the
“BLDR Act”). He further submitted that in the event of
cancellation of the petitioner’s parcha, the petitioner has an
efficacious alternative remedy available before the appropriate
Forum under the said Act.
9. Mr. Pradum Bhushan Bharat, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the private Respondent No. 11, reiterates
the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the State.
He further informs that the land in question is Khatiyani land
belonging to private Respondent No. 11, who is an Army
personnel. The description of the said Khatiyani land has been
duly mentioned in his petition submitted before the Public
Grievance Redressal Authority. Upon consideration of the
application of Respondent No. 11, the Grievance Officer made a
recommendation to the Circle Officer to act in accordance with
law. As such, the writ petition is pre-mature since before any
action having been taken against the petitioner, the petitioner
has filed the present writ petition.
10. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf
Patna High Court CWJC No.15455 of 2021 dt.02-02-2026
6/9
of the petitioner submitted that the Welfare Scheme is a scheme
of the State Government and has statutory force that no person
can dispossess an Army personnel from land that has been
allotted/settled in his favour by the State Government.
11. Heard the parties.
12. Having heard the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, I find that the present writ petition has
been filed at a stage when final action is yet to be taken by the
authority concerned, pursuant to the recommendation made by
the Circle Officer, as contained in Annexure-P/6 bearing Memo
No. 380 dated 02.06.2021. By the said memo, the Circle Officer
has recommended cancellation of the Jamabandi standing in the
name of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid land, which the
petitioner has claimed to have been settled in his favour in the
year 1999, vide Settlement Case No. 1/1990-91.
13. The order of settlement has been duly brought on
record by way of Annexure-P/3, being the order dated
30.08.1999 passed by the Circle Officer in compliance with the
direction of the District Magistrate-cum-Collector. It has further
been clarified by the learned counsel for the State that the Circle
Officer while recommending for cancellation is not required to
see the effect of the Settlement Case No. 1/1990-91, pursuant to
Patna High Court CWJC No.15455 of 2021 dt.02-02-2026
7/9
which the Parcha was issued in favour of the petitioner, as is
evident from the letter dated 30.08.1999.
14. The record reveals that the petitioner has remained
in peaceful and uninterrupted possession of the land in question,
and according to him, he is still in possession of the said land.
The petitioner is also aggrieved by the alleged illegal and
arbitrary action of the private respondent no. 11, who according
to the petitioner in connivance with the revenue authorities has
repeatedly disturbed the petitioner by filing frivolous cases
initiated on the basis of complaints calling for necessary action
by the concerned Circle Officer in the present case.
15. It is well settled principle of law, if a Court,
tribunal or quasi judicial authority wrongly assumes jurisdiction
without discussing the jurisdictional fact, such order or action
can be questioned by a writ of certiorari. The under line
principle is that by erroneously assuming jurisdiction of such
jurisdictional fact, no authority can confer upon it itself
jurisdiction, which it otherwise doesn't possess. The absence of
jurisdictional fact is strong ground to invoke writ jurisdiction
and in alternative, if a jurisdictional fact exist, the plea of
alternative remedy could be a hurdle in entertaining a writ
petition.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15455 of 2021 dt.02-02-2026
8/9
16. From the records and the facts, which have been
brought along with the writ petition, I find that the Circle
Officer has assumed jurisdiction insofar as recommending for
cancellation of Jamabandi without discussing the jurisdictional
fact can be held to have acted without authority of law. In such
circumstances, the action of the Circle Officer calls for
interference of this Court.
17. Accordingly, the office order contained in Memo
No. 380 dated 02.06.2021 is hereby quashed and set aside.
18. Before Parting with this order, I find that the
Revenue Officers, particularly the Circle Officers in the State of
Bihar have frequently being found to give rise to frivolous
litigation, who starts with questioning the title and possession
on the basis of paper or applications filed by persons claiming
an interest in property of others recommending for cancellation
of Jamabandi. As a result of illegal action of the C.O., the same
has happened in the present case, the State Government has not
claimed that the land settled in favour of the petitioner is
government land. Moreover, in absence of any report from the
competent authority as required under the Government Scheme
of 1972, the action of the Circle Officer can only be said to be
beyond the scope of his jurisdiction.
Patna High Court CWJC No.15455 of 2021 dt.02-02-2026
9/9
19. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Revenue, is required to take steps to educate, particularly, the
Circle Officers, who, by their order, put the citizens to face
hardship leading to filing of cases against their illegal order
before this Court and tribunals.
20. With the above observation/direction, the present
writ petition stands disposed of.
chn/-
(Purnendu Singh, J)
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 11.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.