Patna High Court
David KumarversusThe State of Bihar,
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The Collector’s order dated 31‑05‑2021 is set aside; Jamabandi No. 71 is to be restored in favour of the petitioner and any Jamabandi in favour of the respondent or his forefathers is to be cancelled.
Summary
The petitioner, grandson of Narain Yadav, challenged the Collector of Bhagalpur's order dated 31‑05‑2021 that set aside a Jamabandi in his favour and directed the parties to resolve the dispute in a civil court. The dispute originated from a 1969 title suit where the grandfather of the respondent was awarded the land, leading to an execution and auction that created a Jamabandi for the respondent’s forefathers. Subsequent litigation, including a Miscellaneous Appeal and a High Court revision, affirmed the petitioner’s title and resulted in payment of Rs.1500 to settle the cost. After nearly two decades, the respondent’s father sought cancellation of the petitioner’s Jamabandi, which the Additional Collector cancelled, prompting the present writ. The High Court held that the Collector exceeded his jurisdiction by treating the matter as a title dispute, ignored the settled civil‑court orders, and failed to apply the Bihar Land Mutation Act properly. Consequently, the Court set aside the Collector’s order, restored Jamabandi No. 71 to the petitioner, and ordered cancellation of any Jamabandi in favour of the respondent.
Issues considered
- Whether the Collector, Bhagalpur exceeded his jurisdiction by setting aside the Jamabandi in favour of the petitioner and directing the parties to approach a civil court for the title dispute.
- Whether a long‑standing Jamabandi can be cancelled without a civil court decree.
- Whether the statutory remedy under Section 9(7a) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 was correctly availed before approaching the High Court.
- Whether the title of the land had already been settled by competent civil courts and the High Court, precluding further cancellation.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 — s. Section 9(7a)
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226, Article 227
Subjects
- land mutation
- Jamabandi
- title dispute
- civil court jurisdiction
- Bihar Land Mutation Act
- writ petition
- cancellation of Jamabandi
- long‑standing Jamabandi
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16971 of 2021
======================================================
David Kumar, Son of late Umesh Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village - Halkara
Chack, P.S.- Sultanganj, District- Bhagalpur, at present Village-
Shivnandanpur, P.S.- Sultanganj, District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reform Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Bhagalpur.
4. The Additional Collector, Bhagalpur.
5. The Circle Officer, Sultanganj, Bhagalpur.
6. Nand Kumar Yadav, S/o late Suresh Yadav, R/o Village- Hemra, Halkara
Chack (Nayagaon), P.S.- (Bath) Sultanganj, Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Raj Kishore Roy, G.P.-18
For the Respondent No.6: Mr. Rajendra Kumar Jain, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 10-04-2026
Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the learned Advocate
for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Kumar Jai, the learned
Advocate for respondent No. 6. The State has been
represented by Mr. Raj Kishore Roy, GP-18.
2. The present writ application, under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred by
the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 31.05.2021
passed by the Collector, Bhagalpur in Jamabandi Cancellation
Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026
2/17
Appeal Case No. 121/2019-20, whereby the order dated
21.05.2018 passed by the Additional Collector, Bhagalpur in
Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 07/2017-18 has been set
aside.
Factual Background :-
3. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ
application is to the effect that in the year 1969, there was a
litigation between the grandfathers of the petitioner and
respondent No. 6 with respect to a land, appertaining to Khata
No. 65, Khesra No. 71, Area 17 decimal, falling within
Mauza-Hemra, for which, a Title Suit, bearing No. 97 of 1969,
was instituted. On contest, the judgment and decree was
passed in favour of the grandfather of respondent No. 6,
namely, Gullo Yadav, with a cost of Rs. 66.25/- paise.
4. In pursuance to the said judgment and decree,
the grandfather of the petitioner, namely, Narain Yadav, had to
pay the cost, which he could not pay as awarded in the decree
to the decree-holder, on account of which said Gullo Yadav,
the decree-holder of Title Suit No. 97 of 1969, filed an
execution case, bearing No. 1399 of 1977, for realization of
the cost of Rs. 66.25/- paise.
5. In the aforesaid execution case, the learned
Execution Court has passed an ex-parte order on 19.04.1979
Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026
3/17
and auctioned sold the Khatiyani land of the petitioner, bearing
Mauza-Hemra, Khata No. 65, Khesra No. 93, Area 0.16
decimal for a meager amount of Rs. 103/- only, which was
purchased by the grandfather of respondent No. 6. Aforesaid
Gullo Yadav, on the basis of such purchase, filed a mutation
case, bearing No. 18-1981-82, and one Jamabandi, bearing
No. 189, was created on 10.03.1982 for the aforesaid Khata
No. 71, Khesra No. 93.
6. The grandfather of the petitioner came to know
about the ex-parte order passed in Execution Case No.
1399/1977, upon which, he filed a miscellaneous case, bearing
No. 18/1981, before the learned Munsif-II, Bhagalpur for
recall of the ex-parte order as well as the order of auction of
the land in question. The said Miscellaneous Case No.
18/1981 was dismissed on 25.08.1983, holding it to be time
barred.
7. Assailing the aforesaid order dated 25.08.1983,
one miscellaneous appeal, bearing No. 17/1983, was preferred
by the grandfather of the petitioner before the learned District
Judge, Bhagalpur. The said Miscellaneous Appeal No.
17/1983, on contest, was allowed on 29.07.1987 by the learned
1st Addl. District Judge, Bhagalpur, whereby the order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026
4/17
25.08.1983, passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 18/1981, was
set aside. The learned Court also set aside the auction
certificate of the land of the petitioner, bearing Mauza-Hemra,
Khata No. 71, Kheshra No. 93, Area 0.16 decimal, which was
auctioned by the learned Munsif-II, Bhagalpur in Execution
Case No. 1399/1977 for realization of the cost of the Suit
awarded in Title Suit No. 97/1969.
8. The aforesaid order dated 29.07.1987, passed
in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17/1983, was challenged before
this Court vide Civil Revision No. 417 of 1990. The High
Court by order dated 19.08.1993, not only confirmed the order
passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17 of 1983 but also
settled the dispute with consent by enhancing the cost of Suit
from Rs. 66.25 paise to Rs. 1500/-. In pursuance to the High
Court’s order, the enhanced cost of Suit was paid by the
grandfather of the petitioner, namely, Narain Yadav and was
duly accepted by the father of respondent No. 6, namely,
Suresh Yadav.
9. One mutation case, bearing No. 26/1987-88,
which was preferred by the father of the petitioner, was
reviewed by the Circle Officer, Sultanganj on the basis of the
order passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 17/1983 and
Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026
5/17
thereby, Jamabandi No. 71 in favour of late Narain Yadav was
revived by order dated 18.03.1988 and since then, the rent has
been paid by the grandfather of the petitioner.
10. In the meanwhile, the Title Execution Case
No. 133/1977, which was preferred by the grandfather of
respondent No. 6, namely, Gullo Yadav, was also dismissed
taking into consideration the order passed by this Court in
Civil Revision No. 417 of 1990 and the dispute was laid to
rest.
11. Almost after 19 years, the father of
respondent No. 6, namely, Suresh Yadav, after several years of
the death of Gullo Yadav, his father, filed Jamabandi
Cancellation Case No. 01/2015 before the Circle Officer,
Sultanganj, which was ultimately forwarded to the Addl.
Collector, Bhagalpur and a Jamabandi Case No. 07/2017-18
was registered. The Addl. Collector, by a detailed and
reasoned order, dismissed the application for cancellation of
Jamabandi made in favour of the forefathers of the petitioner
by order dated 21.05.2018.
12. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order,
respondent No. 6 has filed Jamabandi Cancellation Appeal No.
121/2019-20 before the Collector, Bhagalpur. The Collector,
Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026
6/17
by order dated 31.05.2021, allowed the said appeal preferred
by respondent No. 6, holding therein as follows:
“mYys[kuh; gS fd mHk; i{kksa ds chp iz”uxr
tehu dk LoRo dks ysdj xaHkhj ekeyk gS] ftldk
fujkdj.k l{ke@O;ogkj U;k;ky; ds }kjk gh fd;k tkuk
laHko gS] tks fd bl U;k;ky; ds {ks=kf/kdkj ls ckgj gS
fo}ku fuEu U;k;ky; }kjk bl fcUnq ij dksbZ rF;kRed
fu.kZ; ugha fy;k x;k gS
vr% mDr ds leh{kksijkUr fu’d’kZr% fo)ku fuEu
U;k;ky; dk vkns”k fnukad 21-05-18 dks fujLr djrs gq,
orZeku okn dh dkjZokbZ lekIr dh tkrh gSA”
13. The petitioner, being the grandson of late
Narain Yadav and aggrieved by such order passed by the
Collector, Bhagalpur, has preferred the present writ
application.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER :-
14. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, the learned Advocate for
the petitioner, submits that the Collector, Bhagalpur has
exceeded his jurisdiction by ignoring the orders passed not
only by a competent Civil Court, but also being approved by
the High Court when the father of respondent No. 6 had
approached this Court, initiating a proceeding under the
Revisional Jurisdiction, being Civil Revision No. 417 of 1990.
It has been submitted that the Collector ignored the fact that
the execution case filed by the grandfather of respondent No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026
7/17
6, namely, Gullo Yadav, was dismissed on 17.07.1996 and,
therefore, his approaching for cancellation of Jamabandi
almost after 19 years was, in itself, a mischief and, thus, the
impugned order is perverse and illegal as also has been passed
in defiance of the order passed by the High Court.
15. It has been submitted that the impugned order
suffers from other illegalities also as while holding that “the
dispute between the parties seems to be with regard to title and
the same can only be settled through a competent Civil Court
and the same is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court and
thereby setting aside the previous orders passed by the Addl.
Collector, Bhagalpur stating that the Addl. Collector had not
taken any factual decision on the same”, is apparently against
the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on this
point, refers to the order dated 21.05.2018 passed by the Addl.
Collector, Bhagalpur and drew the attention of this Court to
the second-last paragraph of the same, which reads as
hereunder:
“mijksDr rF;ksa ,oa nkf[ky dkxtkrksa ds
voyksdu ds mijkar ;g U;k;ky; bl fu’d’kZ ij
igqaprk gS fd lqjs”k ;kno }kjk /kks[kk/kM+h djrs gq,
fnokuh okn la0&97@69 esa vius i{k esa fMdzh izkIr dj
fy;kA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; iVuk ds vkns”k
fnukad&19-08-1993 ds }kjk ;g Li’V gS fd oknh dks
1500 :i;s dh jde izkIr djkdj ds”k dks lekIr dj
Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026
8/17
fn;k x;k gSA ftldk mYys[k fnokuh tkjh okn
la0&1399@77 esa fnukad&17-07-1996 dks ikfjr vkns”k esa
lqLi’V dj fn;k x;k gS fd okn dk dksbZ jde ckdh
ugha jgk gS rFkk bls [kkfjt dj fn;k x;k gSA iw.kZ
olwyh ds vk/kkj ij okn dks [kkfjt dj fn;k x;k gSA
bl fLFkfr esa fMdzh ds vk/kkj ij oknh ds i{k esa tekcanh
189 dks ;Fkkor j[kuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA bls
jn~n fd;k tkrk gS vapy vf/kdkjh lqyrkuxat }kjk
foi{kh dks ,y0ih0lh0 fuxZr gS tks n[ky dCtk dk
izek.k lkfcr djrk gSA”
16. It has been submitted that the Addl. Collector,
Bhagalpur, after taking the entire factual background of the
case and recording the previous findings and orders of the
competent Civil Court, had come to a categorical finding that
Jamabandi No. 189, created in favour of the applicant/Suresh
Yadav, could not be sustained and was thereby being
cancelled. The Addl. Collector had rejected the
recommendations of the Circle Officer, Sultanganj after
assessing the entire facts of the case including the orders
passed by the Civil Court as well as the High Court.
17. The learned counsel, therefore, has submitted
that relegating the parties to settle the dispute of mutation,
stating it to be a dispute of title, is, in itself, illegal in the
present facts and circumstances of the case as the title has
already been decided by a competent Civil Court and the
matter was laid to rest after the enhanced amount of Rs. 1500/-
Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026
9/17
was paid by the grandfather of the petitioner to the grandfather
of respondent No. 6, as directed by the High Court.
18. It has further been submitted that it is settled
law that long standing Jamabandi cannot be cancelled on
vague claims. However, in the case in hand, it is evident from
the facts that the Jamabandi created in favour of the
grandfather of the petitioner was created after the disposal of
Title Execution Case No. 1399/1977.
19. It has, thus, been prayed that the order
impugned in the present petition is fit to be set aside.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE :-
20. Mr. Raj Kishore Roy, the learned GP-18,
referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent
Nos. 3, 4 and 5, submits that the order passed by the Collector,
Bhagalpur was legal, just, exhaustive and is a well reasoned &
speaking order and, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity
in the said impugned order.
21. It has further been submitted that it could not
be said that the Collector has not applied his mind and passed
an order. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has
directly approached the High Court without availing the
remedy of filing revision petition before the Revisional
Commissioner, as provided under the Bihar Land Mutation
Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026
10/17
Act, 2011 and, therefore, the present writ application is not
maintainable in its form.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 6 :-
22. Mr. Rajendra Kumar Jain, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6, while opposing the
present petition, has submitted that the writ petition is in
competent as the statutory remedy of revision under Section 9
(7a) of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011, challenging the
Jamabandi Cancellation Appeal, dated 31.05.2021, should
have been availed and, thereafter, the remedy lies before the
Bihar Land Tribunal (B.L.T.) before approaching this Court.
23. It has been submitted that the land in question
belongs to the ancestor of respondent No. 6, viz., late Suresh
Yadav, Son of Gullo Yadav, which was mutated in the name of
Gullo Yadav vide Mutation Case No. 18/1981-82 and
Jamabandi No. 189 was created in his name. It has been
asserted that the land in question is in continuous possession of
respondent No. 6, since the period of his grandfather/Gullo
Yadav.
24. The learned counsel further submits that the
land in question was wrongly mutated vide Mutation Case No.
26/87-88 and Jamabandi No. 71 was also wrongly created in
the name of Narain Prasad Yadav, the grandfather of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026
11/17
petitioner.
25. It has next been submitted that the Addl.
Collector, Bhagalpur had erroneously refused to cancel
Jamabandi No. 71 created in the name of the grandfather of the
petitioner and without any legal ground, had gone on to cancel
the standing Jamabandi No. 189 in favour of the father of
respondent No. 6/Suresh Yadav, which was not even the
subject matter which was forwarded by the Circle Officer,
Sultanganj. It has been submitted that the Circle Officer had
reported that it was respondent No. 6, who was in possession
over the land in question, however the same was not taken into
account. It has further been submitted that the Collector,
Bhagalpur had also gone beyond his jurisdiction by holding
that there is a serious dispute of title between the parties,
though he submits that the Collector has rightly set aside the
order passed by the Addl. Collector, Bhagalpur in Jamabandi
Cancellation Appeal No. 121/2019-20.
26. The learned counsel for respondent No. 6
submits that the land in question is the ancestral property of
respondent No. 6 having right, title and possession over the
same on the basis of the decree passed in Title Suit No.
97/1969 and, therefore, the Addl. Collector, Bhagalpur had
Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026
12/17
exceeded its jurisdiction and had wrongly cancelled Jamabandi
No. 189 standing in the name of the father of respondent No.
6, namely, Suresh Yadav. It has, therefore, been contended
that there is no jurisdictional error in the impugned order
passed by the Collector, Bhagalpur and it does not require any
interference. It has also been submitted that it is a well settled
law that the Revisional Courts has no jurisdiction to decide the
question of title involved in a land dispute between the parties.
27. It has, thus, been submitted that the present
writ application is devoid of any merit and is liable to be
dismissed.
CONSIDERATION :-
28. After having heard the parties, the dispute
involved in the present matter can be summarized as follows:
(i) Whether the order passed by the
Collector, Bhagalpur setting aside the order
upholding the Jamabandi in favour of the
petitioner is beyond jurisdiction?; and
(ii) Whether the title needs to be seen
prima facie before coming to a finding with
regard to cancellation/creation of a Jamabandi?
29. The Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 provides
for a summary proceeding for mutation of land records with
the sole object of maintaining updated revenue entries. It is a
Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026
13/17
well settled principle that mutation proceeding do not confer
title and are only for fiscal purposes. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court, in various judicial pronouncements, has held that
mutation entries neither create nor extinguish title and the
same has been reiterated in the case of “Suraj Bhan Vs.
Financial Commissioner, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 186”.
30. From perusal of the impugned order, this
Court has observed that the Collector, Bhagalpur has dealt
with the factual aspect of the matter in detail and has noted the
factum of creation of Jamabandi in favour of the petitioner
and even the reasons of cancellation of Jamabandi, which was
created in favour of respondent No. 6 and, thereafter, has come
to a conclusion that the dispute between the parties relates to a
dispute of title, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the
Collector and it can only be decided by a competent Civil
Court.
31. This Court further finds that the Collector,
Bhagalpur has observed that the Addl. Collector, Bhagalpur
had decided the matter with regard to the factual aspect of the
matter and, therefore, the order passed by the Addl. Collector
dated 21.05.2018 was set aside and the proceeding was closed.
This Court, on perusal of the order passed by the Addl.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026
14/17
Collector in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 07/2017-18,
which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-P/6 to
the writ application, finds that the Addl. Collector has
considered the entire facts of the case and taking into
consideration the title, which had flown in favour of
respondent No. 6 on account of auction purchase and thereby,
the said order being set aside in a miscellaneous case by the
Court of learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Bhagalpur and
affirmed by the High Court and, therefore, the claim of title of
the father of respondent No. 6 is wrong and, thus, he had gone
on to hold that Jamabandi No. 71, in favour of the forefathers
of the petitioner, was created and was directed to continue.
32. From the aforesaid order of the Addl.
Collector, Bhagalpur, it is also evident that he had taken into
account the fact that when the amount of Rs. 1500/- was paid
by the grandfather of the petitioner to the father of respondent
No. 6, the matter was settled for all times to come and,
therefore, the very factum of claim over the same by the father
of respondent No. 6, came to rest.
33. The other aspect of the matter passed by the
Addl. Collector, Bhagalpur was that he had also directed for
cancellation of Jamabandi No. 189, which also had continued
Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026
15/17
during the said period and has, thus, directed for cancellation
of such Jamabandi standing in the name of the father of
respondent No. 6.
34. This Court has also taken note of the fact that
the application for cancellation of Jamabandi No. 71, standing
in the name of the forefathers of the petitioner, was made after
almost 19 years of the passing of the orders of the Civil Court
and, therefore, it is in teeth of the well settled law that a long
standing Jamabandi cannot be cancelled without taking
recourse before a competent Civil Court.
35. At this juncture, this Court is of the view that
the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of “Maya Devi
& Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. , reported in (2014) 3 PLJR,
584” is relevant in the present facts and circumstances of the
case.
36. In view of such settled position of law, this
Court finds that not only the Collector, Bhagalpur has erred in
observing that the Addl. Collector, Bhagalpur had not
considered the factual background of the case, but has also
committed an error that on one hand, he is relegating the
parties to approach a competent Civil Court, holding it to be a
dispute of title, and on the other hand, he has set aside the
Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026
16/17
order of the Addl. Collector without passing a positive order,
either restoring the Jamabandi in favour of respondent No. 6
or cancellation of Jamabandi in favour of the forefathers of the
petitioner.
37. This Court, on perusal of the records has
found that the said land was a Khatiyani land belonging to the
petitioner and the claim over the same was on account of
auction purchase by the forefathers of respondent No. 6 and,
therefore, once the said auction purchase was set aside and Rs.
1500/- was paid by the forefathers of the petitioner to the
forefathers of respondent No. 6, question of title or possession
over such land in favour of the forefathers of respondent No. 6
cannot arise.
38. This Court is unable to comprehend as to the
fact that the Collector, Bhagalpur could not assess the facts of
the case despite verbatim noting the submissions being made
on behalf of the parties and as such, the impugned order can be
said to be passed without application of judicious mind
because of the fact that when a matter with respect to title has
already been settled between the parties way-back in the year
1983 till the stage of the High Court and no further petition
being pending before any other Court, cancelling the long
Patna High Court CWJC No.16971 of 2021 dt.10-04.2026
17/17
standing Jamabandi in favour of the petitioner, cannot be
permitted in the eyes of law.
39. In view of the discussions made hereinabove,
the impugned order dated 31.05.2021, referred to above, is set
aside.
40. The Circle Officer, Sultanganj is directed to
restore Jamabandi No. 71 with respect to the land in question
in favour of the petitioner and any other Jamabandi standing
in favour of respondent No. 6 or his forefathers should be
cancelled with immediate effect.
41. The writ application stands allowed and
disposed of accordingly.
42. Interlocutory application(s), if any, also
stands disposed of accordingly.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 01.04.2026
Uploading Date 10.04.2026
Transmission Date N/A
Checking your session…