Patna High Court
Devki SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The order of the Additional Collector cancelling Jamabandi No. 75 is quashed as the revenue authority lacks jurisdiction to determine title.
Summary
The petitioners, four brothers, claimed ownership of land purchased in 1929 and held a Jamabandi since 1957, which was mutated to their names in 1985. In 2025 a private respondent filed a Jamabandi cancellation case, and the Additional Collector cancelled the Jamabandi, relying on a 1931 deed. The petitioners filed a writ seeking quashing of that order, restoration of the Jamabandi, and a mandamus against the revenue authorities. The court held that revenue officials lack jurisdiction to determine title and that the cancellation order was passed without proper verification of documents. Consequently, the order dated 29‑12‑2025 was set aside and quashed. The court directed the Collector to form a three‑member committee to conduct a proper inquiry and pass a reasoned order, and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the Additional Collector has jurisdiction to cancel a Jamabandi and decide the title of the land.
- Whether the order dated 29‑12‑2025 cancelling the Jamabandi can be set aside on the ground of jurisdictional error.
- Whether a mandamus directing restoration of the Jamabandi and restraining the revenue authorities is appropriate.
Subjects
- Jamabandi
- Mutation
- Revenue authority jurisdiction
- Land title
- Mandamus
- Certiorari
- Civil writ jurisdiction
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2008 of 2026
======================================================
1. Devki Singh son of Late Hargovind Ahir, resident of K.G. Road, Ara, P.S.-
Ara, Nawada, District-Bhojpur, Bihar.
2. Ayodhya Singh son of Late Hargovind Ahir, resident of K.G. Road, Ara,
P.S.-Ara, Nawada, District-Bhojpur, Bihar.
3. Bhagwati Singh son of Late Hargovind Ahir, resident of K.G. Road, Ara,
P.S.-Ara, Nawada, District-Bhojpur, Bihar.
4. Rajendra Singh son of Late Hargovind Ahir, resident of K.G. Road, Ara,
P.S.-Ara, Nawada, District-Bhojpur, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land
Reforms Department, Government of Bihar.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department,
Government of Bihar.
3. The Collector, Bhojpur at Ara, Bihar.
4. The Additional Collector, Bhojpur at Ara, Bihar.
5. The Circle Officer, Ara, Bihar.
6. Ashim Sundar Das son of Late Ajit Sundra Das, permanent resident of
Mohalla - Mahajan Toli No. 1, Arrah, P.S. Arrah Town, District - Bhojpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bimal Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Gautam Kumar Yadav, AC to GP(26)
For the Resp. No.6 : Mr.Chandrakant, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 09-02-2026
Heard Mr. Bimal Kumar, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners; Mr. Gautam Kumar Yadav, learned
AC to GP(26) for the State and Mr. Chandrakant, learned
counsel for the respondent no.6.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2008 of 2026 dt.09-02-2026
2/6
2. The petitioners in paragraph no. 1 of the present
writ petition have sought, inter alia, the following relief(s),
which is reproduced hereinafter:-
“(i) To issue an appropriate order/direction
in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated
29.12.2025 passed by the Learned Additional Collector,
Bhojpur at Ara in Mutation Cancellation Case No.-
25/2025-26 by which the mutation created in favour of
the petitioners bearing Jamabandi no. 75 against Old
Khata No. 05, Old Khesra No. 26, 27 & 28 has been
cancelled (Annexure-P/10, Pg.-66).
(ii) To issue an appropriate order/direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent
authorities to restore the Jamabandi no. 75 in favour of
the writ petitioners in the rent records of the lands
bearing Old Khata No. 05, Old Khesra No. 26, 27 & 28.
(iii) To issue an appropriate order/direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent
authorities not to give effect the order dated 29.12.2025
or to create any third party right in favour of the private
respondent no. 6.
(iv) To issue any other relief for which the
petitioners are entitled for.”
3. Brief facts of the case are that the land bearing Old
Khata No. 5, Old Khesra Nos. 26 (5 decimals), 27 (45 decimals)
and 28 (24.5 decimals) situated at Mauza–Nawada, Town–Arrah
was purchased by Late Hargovind Ahir, father of the writ
petitioners, from the recorded raiyat Indradev Pathak by a
registered sale deed dated 23.08.1929 (Deed No. 5691),
preceded by payment of consideration through Mahadanamas
dated 03.07.1922, 12.09.1924 and 21.06.1927. After purchase of
the said land, Late Hargovind Ahir remained in peaceful,
Patna High Court CWJC No.2008 of 2026 dt.09-02-2026
3/6
uninterrupted possession, duly recognized by the revenue
authorities. Rent receipts were issued from 1929 onwards and
Jamabandi No. 75 stood in his name since 1957. After his death
in 1982, the Jamabandi was mutated in the year 1985 in favour
of his four sons bearing Jamabandi No. 75/5, and rent receipts
have continuously been issued in their favour till 2025. In 2025–
26, private respondent No. 6, Bibhuti Kumar Jain, filed
Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 25/2025–26 claiming title
through alleged transfers originating from Bindeshwari Pathak.
The petitioners contested the claim, relying on the 1929 sale
deed, registry index entries, rent receipts, possession certificate
dated 03.07.2025, and judgment passed Title Suit No. 253/1929,
wherein, it was held that one Bindeshwari Pathak had no right
or locus to sell the land. Despite the long-standing Jamabandi
and ignoring the above evdience and judgment of the competent
Court, ADM, Ara on his own determined the title of the private
respondent no.06 by order dated 29.12.2025 and cancelled
Jamabandi No. 75, relying inter alia on a 1931 sale deed and
certain municipal/rent records. The petitioners claim that the
Additional Collector has committed the jurisdictional error by
cancelling a decades-old Jamabandi in summary proceedings
and the pendency of Cr. WJC No. 2127 of 2025 on identical
Patna High Court CWJC No.2008 of 2026 dt.09-02-2026
4/6
facts hence the present writ petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners
submitted that primarily the dispute between the petitioners and
private respondent no.6 is appertaining to Jamabandi No.75
bearing Old Khata No.05, Old Khesra No.26, 27 and 28 and the
petitioners have brought on record several land receipts issued
in their favour and one sale deed dated 23.08.1929 (Annexure –
P/7) in support of their relief as prayed for in the present writ
petition.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent no.6 gives information that the said Jamabandi
no.75 is in the name of one Ashim Sundar Das and the private
respondent no.6 is the one who is in possession of Khata No.05,
Khesra No.26, 27 and 28 and on the basis of possession the
Circle Officer concerned has correctly recommended for
cancellation of Jamabandi and there is no infirmity in the order
dated 29.12.2025 passed by the Additional Collector, Bhojpur
calling for no interference of this Court.
6. Heard the parties.
7. Considering the nature of dispute and the manner in
which the Circle Officers in Bihar from time to time in exercise
of their jurisdiction has created frivolous cases by putting one
Patna High Court CWJC No.2008 of 2026 dt.09-02-2026
5/6
person in advantageous position and other to face the
consequences of their illegal act. Present is the case where the
petitioners claim to be in possession of the land, which has been
disputed by the respondent no.6. The land has been described in
above paragraphs of this writ petition. The Circle Officer in a
very arbitrary and malafide manner has cancelled the Jamabandi
standing in the name of the petitioners who also claim to be the
owners. The record reveals that the respondent no.6 has filed
application before the Circle Officer has admitted in his
application that he was not in possession of the land.
8. It is well settled that 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
well settled that an entry in the revenue records is not a
document of title. Revenue authorities cannot decide a
Patna High Court CWJC No.2008 of 2026 dt.09-02-2026
6/6
question of title.
9. Considering the facts of the case as well as, the law
laid down by the Apex Court in case of Faqruddin (Supra), I
find that based on certain documents without verifying its
genuity, the revenue authority has proceeded to decide the title
of the parties and as such the order dated 29.12.2025 passed by
the Additional Collector, Bhojpur is hereby set-aside and
quashed.
10. The Collector, Bhojpur is directed to constitute a
three-member committee of officials not below the rank of
Additional Collector and based on the inquiry report, verify, as
to whether, any other person also claim their interest with the
original land holders in respect of the land in question and after
providing opportunity to both the parties pass a reasoned order
in accordance with law.
11. Accordingly, the present writ application stands
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Ashishsingh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 17.02.2026
Transmission Date NA
Checking your session…