Patna High Court
Pawan Singh @ Paban SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The order dated 26‑08‑2022 passed by the District Magistrate‑cum‑Collector is quashed and set aside.
Summary
The petitioner, Pawan Singh, claimed hereditary possession of 1.225 acres of land in Lakhisarai, asserting that a Jamabandi in his ancestor's name had been validly created after an oral settlement in 1943. In 2019, a Jamabandi Cancellation Case was initiated, leading to an order on 29‑02‑2020 cancelling the Jamabandi, which the petitioner challenged by filing an appeal (Jamabandi Cancellation Appeal No. 17/2021) and a writ petition. The District Magistrate‑cum‑Collector, relying on a claim that the land had become a pond and was "Gair Majarua Aam" (public land), dismissed the appeal on 26‑08‑2022 without proper consideration of the Khatiyan. The High Court found that the Magistrate‑cum‑Collector acted beyond his jurisdiction, lacked evidentiary support, and therefore quashed the 26‑08‑2022 order. The matter was remanded to the District Magistrate‑cum‑Collector for fresh consideration with due hearing, and the writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the District Magistrate‑cum‑Collector had jurisdiction to cancel the Jamabandi and pass the order dated 26‑08‑2022.
- Whether the initiation of the Jamabandi Cancellation Case constituted an abuse of process of law.
- Whether the land in question is public "Gair Majarua Aam" land or private land subject to the petitioner's possessionary rights.
- Whether the order dated 26‑08‑2022 should be quashed on the ground of lack of evidence and jurisdiction.
- Whether a status‑quo should be maintained pending the pending appeal and writ proceedings.
Subjects
- Jamabandi cancellation
- public land
- possessionary rights
- writ petition
- abuse of process
- jurisdiction
- status quo
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3731 of 2022
======================================================
Pawan Singh @ Paban Singh S/o Late Mishri Singh Resident of Village-
Rajauna Chauki, P.O.-Balguddar, P.S.-and District-Lakhisarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secreary Revanue and Land Reforms,
New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Lakhisarai, District-Lakhisarai
3. The, Additional Collector, Lakhisarai
4. The, L.R.D.C. Lakhisarai, District-Lakhisarai
5. The, Circle Officer, Lakhisarai, District-Lakhisarai
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advocate
Mr. Shashank Kashyap, Advocate
Ms. Sheshadri Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Ishiqua Raj, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, Sr. Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-02-2026
Heard Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Sajid Salim Khan,
learned senior counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ
petition has sought, inter alia, following relief(s), which is
reproduced hereinafter:-
"(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of
command directing the respondent to hold that entire
process of initiating of Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.
21 of 2019 and further proceeding is band in law and is
abuse of process of law.
(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of
Command directing the respondent particularly Collector,
Lakhisarai to heard and disposed of the Jamabandi
Patna High Court CWJC No.3731 of 2022 dt.02-02-2026
2/6
Cancellation Appeal No. 17/2021 within time fixed and also
to disposed of stay petition filed in said appeal forthwith.
(iii) For issuance of writ in the nature of
command directing the respondents authorities to not
disturb the petitioner during pendency of the writ petitioner
and also direct them to maintain status quo till final
disposal of this writ petition.
(iv) For any other writ/writs, order/orders for
which petitioner deemed entitled to."
3. The brief facts of the case is that the dispute
concerns land situated at Mauza Chauki, Tauzi No. 3688, Thana
No. 141, Khata No. 111, Survey Plot No. 598, measuring 1.225
acres, Anchal Lakhisarai, District Lakhisarai, for which
Jamabandi No. 77 stood in the name of the petitioner’s ancestor.
The petitioner asserts that the land was orally settled in 1943 by
the then ex-landlord in favour of his grandfather, Bishwanath
Singh, followed by issuance of a Hukumnama and recognition
of his raiyati rights at the time of vesting, whereafter Jamabandi
was created, his name recorded in Register-II, and rent paid to
the State continuously. Upon his death, the property devolved
upon his sons, and ultimately upon the present petitioner, who
claims to remain in cultivating possession and to have paid rent
up to 2020–21. The controversy arose when, in 2019, a
Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 21/2019 was initiated on the
recommendation of the Circle Officer, culminating in an order
dated 29.02.2020 passed by the Additional Collector,
Lakhisarai, cancelling the long-standing Jamabandi in a
Patna High Court CWJC No.3731 of 2022 dt.02-02-2026
3/6
summary proceeding, which the petitioner contends is contrary
to settled law. The petitioner preferred Jamabandi Cancellation
Appeal No. 17/2021 before the Collector, Lakhisarai, which
remains pending along with an application for stay, while
alleging that during pendency of the appeal the authorities have
been interfering with the land and damaging his crops.
Aggrieved by the cancellation order and the alleged coercive
action of the authorities despite pendency of the statutory
appeal, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. The District Magistrate in support of his order
dated 26.08.2022, has made statement in paragraph no. 7 of the
counter affidavit duly sworn by him as follows:
"7. That thereafter the petitioner has preferred a
Jamabandi Cancellation Appeal before answering
respondent no. 2 vide Jamabandi Cancellation Appeal No.
17/2021. The appeal was also heard at length. During the
course of argument it was admitted by the petitioner that in
south eastern side of the said Khesra in question there is a
pit which makes it explicitly clear that actual nature of the
said land was pond. The Register II does not disclose as to
how the Jamabandi in question was created. Accordingly
the respondent no. 2 after giving cautious, serious and
judicious consideration to the facts and evidences
pertaining to the matter in question was pleased to dismiss
the said appeal no. 17/2021 vide his speaking order dated
26.08.2022 issued vide memo no. 1095/Vidhi, dated
26.08.2022"
5. This Court has directed the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the State to peruse the Khatiyan and
remark mentioned therein in respect of the land appertaining to
Patna High Court CWJC No.3731 of 2022 dt.02-02-2026
4/6
Mauza Chauki, Tauzi No. 3688, Thana No. 141, Khata No. 111,
Survey Plot No. 598 measuring total area 1.225 Acres, Anchal
Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
very fairly informs this Court that as per the entries made in the
Khatiyan, the aforesaid land is 'Gair Majarua Aam' and if
subsequent to the entries, which were made at the time of
preparation of the Khatiyan in respect of the government land,
the petitioner, who claims that he was/is in possession of the
said land, merely by changing the nature of the land by digging
a pond, will not allow him to be granted possessionary right
over the land in absence of any documentary evidence in this
regard.
7. This Court appreciates the information and the
prudent manner in which Mr. Khan, learned senior counsel has
placed the documents, which have been produced to him by the
Circle Officer. I find that the District Magistrate-cum-Collector
has not acted within his jurisdiction, rather, without any
evidence, has given an incorrect information in paragraph no. 7
of the counter affidavit, which the petitioner has denied that he
has not changed the nature of land being 'Gair Majarua Aam'
but, he has claimed that he has possessionary right over the land
Patna High Court CWJC No.3731 of 2022 dt.02-02-2026
5/6
being in possession since the year 01.02.1945.
8. In absence of any document having been brought
by the petitioner in support of his possessionary right since
1945, this Court is constrained to pass any order, however, the
action of the District Magistrate-cum-Collector is required to be
deprecated, who has not given due consideration to the Khatiyan
and has proceeded to pass order that the land in question is
public land being used for the public purpose as it has been
recorded in the Register-II.
9. In light of the statement made in paragraph no. 7 of
the counter affidavit and the finding based on the remarks
contained in Register-II in respect of the land in question, I find
that the order dated 26.08.2022 passed by the District
Magistrate-cum-Collector in exercise of his appellate
jurisdiction, is fit to be quashed and set aside.
10. The matter is remanded back to the District
Magistrate-cum-Collector for reconsideration after giving due
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
11. However, it is left open to the parties to challenge
the question of settlement as has been claimed by the petitioner
that it has been done by the ex Jamindar and in that respect, the
District Magistrate-cum-Collector has given his finding that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3731 of 2022 dt.02-02-2026
6/6
land is 'Gair Majarua Aam' land and the ex Jamindar had no
jurisdiction or power to settle the said land in favour of the
petitioner, who has brought on record Hukumnama requiring its
consideration only by a competent Civil Court.
12. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
disposed of.
13. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, shall also
stand disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 06.02.2026
Transmission Date N/A
Checking your session…