Bipin Bihari VermaversusThe State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4876 of 2021
     ======================================================
     Bipin Bihari Verma, Son of Basudeo Sahay Verma resident of C/O Pramod
     Kumar, C-102, Pushpanjali Vihari Apartment, Saristabad Road, Near Kacchi
     Talab, Gardanibagh, District- Patna.

                                                             ... ... Petitioner/s
                                      Versus
1.   The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary Government of Bihar, Old
     Secretariat Building, Patna.
2.   The Principal Secretary Department of Revenue and Land Reforms,
     Government of Bihar, Patna.
3.   The District Magistrate, Patna.
4.   The Additional Collector, Patna.
5.   The SDO, Patna City, Patna.
6.   The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Patna City.
7.   The Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna.
8.   Mahesh Prasad son of Late Harinandan Prasad, resident of Bahari
     Begumpur, Beldari Tola, P.O.-Begumpur, Police Station-Bypass, District-
     Patna.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s    :     Mr. Jitendra Kishore Verma, Adv.
                                   Mr. Anjani Kumar, Adv.
                                   Mr. Ravi Raj, Adv.
                                   Mr. Abhishek Kumar Srivastava, Adv.
                                   Ms. Kumari Shreya, Adv.
                                   Mr. Md. Arsam, Adv.
                                   Mr. Akshansh Shanker, Adv.
                                   Mr. Satyendra, Adv.
     For the State           :     Mr. Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, GP-14
                                   Mr. Ajay Prasad, AC to GP-14
     For the Intervenor      :     Mr. Kaushal Kumar, Adv.
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
     C.A.V. JUDGMENT

     Date : 21-05-2026

                     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

      counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the

      intervenor-respondent.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4876 of 2021 dt.21-05-2026
                                           2/21




                     2. The present writ petition has been filed against the

         order dated 05.12.2020 passed by the District Collector Land

         Reforms, Patna City, in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 04 of

         2020-21, which is recommended on the basis of the report of the

         Circle Officer to cancel Jamabandi No. 69, which was in favour

         of the petitioner and also Jamabandi No. 337 running in the

         name of Ranjit Kumar Sinha, who is the purchaser from the

         petitioner. The writ petitioner also seeks mandamus against

         respondents not to disturb peaceful possession of the petitioner

         and/or not to demolish the pucca boundary of the wall of the

         petitioner during the pendency of the writ application.

                     3. During the pendency of the writ application, the

         Additional Collector, Patna, by its order dated 16.08.2021,

         cancelled the jamabandi through Jamabandi Cancellation Case

         No. 77 of 2020-21, relying upon a report of the Circle Officer

         and District Collector, Land Reforms, Patna City. Thereafter, the

         petitioner through I.A. No. 1 of 2021 prayed for amendment in

         the writ petition seeking relief of setting aside the said order and

         the I.A. was allowed by order dated 14.09.2022 and an interim

         order was granted directing the State not to disturb the

         possession of the petitioner and not to make any further

         demolition. However, violations of this order by state authorities
Patna High Court CWJC No.4876 of 2021 dt.21-05-2026
                                           3/21




         were made at the instance of local land mafia and politicians,

         upon which this Hon’ble High Court vide order dated

         22.12.2022, has directed the Superintendent of Police to see that

         the order of this court is not violated and it has further been

         directed to take coercive actions, including arresting those

         persons who violates the said order.

                     4. The present dispute relates to 2 acres and 52

         decimals of land of C.S. Khata No. 231, C.S. Plot No.1, Tauzi

         No. 83 recorded in Khewat No.1 in the name of Gulabo Kuer

         and Khewat No. 4 Babu Banke Lal. The cadastral survey held in

         1906-07 recorded it as Gair Mazarua Aam and the nature of land

         as ‘Nala’ (Drain).

                     5. The case of the Petitioner is that he is the rightful

         owner of property situated at Mauja Dhawalpura, ward No. 29,

         36 old (56,68 at present), Sheet No. 247, Municipal Survey Plot

         Part No. 1480 under Patna Municipal Corporation. Petitioner

         has sold 2k 10 dhur land each to Mangal Saw and Sanjeet kumar

         and others through a registered sale deed executed by Ranjit

         Kumar Sinha and Rahul Jamuar on 09.02.2019. Petitioner has

         executed a general power of attorney in favour of Rahul Jamuar

         whereupon he executed the sale deed.

                     6. The petitioner admits that the property was
Patna High Court CWJC No.4876 of 2021 dt.21-05-2026
                                           4/21




         originally Gair Majarua Malik land belonging to the proprietary

         estate of Radhe Krishna Lal Jamuar, who was in possession and

         Basodev Sahay took this land for cultivation in the year 1944,

         on payment of salami followed by delivery of possession

         evidenced by hukumnama in the year 1944. However, the said

         Basodev Sahay took settlement in the name of trustee Late

         Madho Prasad who had entrusted to negotiate on his behalf, but

         payment of salami and rent to the ex-landlord was made by

         Basodev Sahay only.

                     7. The case of the petitioner is that upon aging,

         Madho Prasad executed Ladavi in 1984 and no one claimed any

         interest over the scheduled property. By virtue of this Ladavi,

         Basodev Sahay obtained mutation in his name and began paying

         rent under receipts. Being ignorant of real facts, one Umesh

         Prasad son of Madho Prasad obtained an illegal order from the

         DCLR in Mutation Appeal No. 18 of 1991-92, which was

         challenged in Mutation Revision No.63 of 1992-93 but it stood

         dismissed for default on account of Basodev Sahay’s death. It is

         after this that the petitioner, who is son of late Basodev Sahay,

         filed a title suit bearing Title Suit No. 105/1999 for declaring

         him as the real owner of the scheduled property of many

         municipal survey plot Nos. including sheet no. 247, having an
Patna High Court CWJC No.4876 of 2021 dt.21-05-2026
                                           5/21




         area of 7 acres 16 decimal and for mutating his name in the

         Circle office. Subsequently, a compromise decree was prepared

         in view of the compromise petition filed by the petitioner which

         was dated 14.09.2000, in which the defendant acknowledged the

         plaintiff's title and possession and also admitted him to be the

         real owner/ raiyat (Annexure-4).

                     8. The further case of the petitioner is that a writ

         petition bearing CWJC No. 24362 of 2018 was filed by private

         respondents who relied upon the recommendation of the Circle

         Officer to the State that encroachment is being caused over land

         pertaining to Khata No. 231, wherein liberty was granted to the

         said writ petitioners to proceed against encroachers and which

         was to be disposed of by the Circle Officer, Patna Sadar.

                     9. Encroachment Case No. 44/2019-20 was initiated,

         directing construction over land to be stopped. However, it is

         submitted that the present petitioner had written a letter to the

         DCLR with regard to starting the work on the strength of the

         cadastral survey khatian, mutation survey, ladavi deed, all of

         which runs in the name of the ancestors of petitioner.

                     10. It is the further case of the petitioner that another

         writ petition bearing CWJC No. 20062 of 2019 was filed in

         which this court directed the conclusion of encroachment
Patna High Court CWJC No.4876 of 2021 dt.21-05-2026
                                           6/21




         proceedings and the removal of any such encroachment found.

         (Annexure-7). It is submitted that one MJC contempt was also

         filed bearing MJC No. 712 of 2020 and under the fear of

         contempt, Circle Officer gave a report on 12.10.2020 that

         Cadastral Survey records the nature of land as ‘Gair Mazarua

         Aam Nala’, but subsequent municipal survey records land as

         MS Plot No.1480, Ward No. 29, Area 2.65 acres and in remarks

         column, the names of Radhe Krishna Lal, Bhagwat Sahay,

         Girija Narayan and Brahmdeo Narayan are recorded. Thus, it is

         next submitted that land as per the Municipal Survey khatiyan

         appears to be raiyati land and runs in the name of Basudev

         Sahay in Register - II, Jamabandi No. 69 was created and rent is

         being paid and so long as it is not cancelled, the order to remove

         encroachments taking aid of the cadastral survey entry cannot

         be complied with, which ignores the municipal entry recording

         land as raiyati.

                     11. It is submitted that DCLR on the report of the

         Circle Officer, as aforesaid, referred Jamabandi Cancellation

         Case No. 4 of 2020-21 to Additional Collector, which was

         earlier impugned in the present writ petition and during the

         pendency of this writ, the said Additional Collector cancelled

         the Jamabandi through Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 77 of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4876 of 2021 dt.21-05-2026
                                           7/21




         2020-21 upon report of the C.O. and DCLR, Patna City by order

         dated 16.08.2021 (Annexure - 17 of Supplementary Affidavit on

         behalf of petitioner). Thereafter, I.A. No. 1 of 2021was filed

         through which the petitioner prayed for amendment of the

         prayer to seek setting aside the order dated 16.08.2021passed by

         the Additional Collector, Patna City and the I.A. was allowed on

         14.09.2022 granting interim relief in favour of petitioners.

                     12. To buttress his submissions, the learned counsel

         for petitioner has relied upon various judicial pronouncements

         to substantiate such submissions. It is the contention of the

         petitioner that State authorities are discarding municipal entry

         made 85-90 years back, which has been treated as raiyati land

         for a long time and this municipal survey holds statutory

         presumption of correctness under Bihar and Orissa Municipal

         Survey Act, 1920. For this, reliance has been placed on Byasdeo

         Mandal & Ors. V Smt. Longi Devi Second Appeal No. 392 of

         2009 and further relied on Vijay Singh & Ors. V State of Bihar

         2015(2) PLJR 796 wherein it was held that a mere particular

         entry in a cadastral survey at an earlier point of time would not

         remain unaltered and the nature of land determined in a recent

         municipal survey prevails.

                     13. It is next contended that the ex-landlord settled the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4876 of 2021 dt.21-05-2026
                                           8/21




         lands way back on 01.07.1923 in favour of Radha Krishna Lal

         and after vesting, the state authorities themselves opened

         Jamabandi No.10 in Register-II in the name of his successor,

         namely Babu Madhav Prasad, which subsequently came to be

         vested in the name of Basudev Sahay in the early 90’s and

         Jamabandi was changed and recorded as No. 69. Reliance is

         placed on a catena of judgments of this Hon’ble court including

         Maya Devi & Others versus The State of Bihar &

         Others{2014(3) PLJR 584}, Ramnandan Singh vs. The State

         of Bihar & Ors.{2014(2) PLJR 636},Vijay Kumar Prasad vs.

         The State of Bihar & Ors.{ 2017(1) PLJR 818} to contend

         that a long-standing Jamabandi cannot be cancelled by state

         authorities through a summary proceeding of Jamabandi

         cancellation. Reliance is also placed on Umesh Jha v The State

         and Another AIR 1956 Pat 425 to contend that the collector

         under section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act has jurisdiction to

         dispute the settlement and to determine its question of existence

         only if it is made after 01.01.1946 and in the present case, such

         a settlement was made by the ex-landlord long before this

         concerned date, thereby rendering its jurisdiction as wrongly

         exercised. It is also contended that Jamabandi was of 1946,

         whereas settlement was of year 1923, thus suo moto power
Patna High Court CWJC No.4876 of 2021 dt.21-05-2026
                                           9/21




         exercised by the Additional Collector under the Bihar Land

         Mutation Act, 2011 is to be made within a reasonable time and

         not after generations, which is succinctly the position as held in

         State of Bihar v Harendra Nath Tiwari {2015(1) PLJR 606}.

                     14. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies upon

         the judgment passed in Khiru Gope v Land Deputy collector

         {AIR 1983 Patna 121} wherein it was held that State cannot

         cancel a settlement made by an ex-landlord, like opening a

         jamabandi, which is impermissible, in fact, the Collector had no

         jurisdiction to cancel jamabandi or remove the names of the

         settlers because it is similar to canceling a settlement by an ex-

         intermediary, which is impermissible as contended by the

         present writ petitioner.

                     15. The further submission of the learned counsel for

         the petitioner is that Jamabandi cancellation is primarily a

         dispute between the Jamabandi holder and the State of Bihar

         and no third party has any locus to be heard and hence I.A. No.

         3 of 2023 where a third person prays for impleadment as party

         in this proceeding, is fit to be rejected. It has further been

         submitted that the argument of respondents that encroachment

         and Jamabandi cancellation was carried out at the instance of

         orders passed by the Division bench of this Hon’ble High Court
Patna High Court CWJC No.4876 of 2021 dt.21-05-2026
                                          10/21




         is baseless. It is submitted that no factual basis is found in either

         the first instance in CWJC No. 24362 of 2018 (PIL) or CWJC

         No. 20062 of 2019 on the basis of which Respondents made

         such a claim and in fact, the state itself has been treating the

         lands as raiyati and Jamabandi is already found to be running.

                     16. Reliance is placed on a Single Bench judgment of

         this court in Yadunandan Singh vs. State of Bihar{2016(3)

         PLJR 237}, where the writ petitioner was never heard, yet

         mandamus was issued to authorities to act in accordance with

         law in a PIL case, whereafter it was held that when a complaint

         is   referred      for    adjudication       by   statutory/administrative

         authorities, it does not require the authority to proceed in a

         mechanical manner, rather, it is required that the matter be

         examined upon its facts and judicial pronouncements on that

         issue. Thus, it is now submitted that the Additional Collector,

         DCLR or CO could not have started Jamabandi cancellation in

         the teeth of the Municipal Survey entry of 1922-23.

                     17. It has been submitted that during the pendency of

         the writ petition Additional Collector cancelled the Jamabandi,

         and for that purpose I.A. No.1 of 2022 was filed by the

         petitioner seeking amendment of the prayer to set aside this

         order cancelling the Jamabandi, and this Court, despite
Patna High Court CWJC No.4876 of 2021 dt.21-05-2026
                                          11/21




         availability of statutory remedy of Appeal under the Act,

         allowed amendment via the said I.A. Heavy reliance is placed

         on M/S Tis Fab Ltd. vs. State of Bihar{1998(2) PLJR 148}

         where this court has entertained the writ petition at the

         admission stage and the parties have exchanged affidavits,

         therefore, it is held inappropriate to dismiss it on the ground of

         an alternative remedy being available. The counsel also relies on

         M/S Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-

         cum- Assessing Authority{AIR 2023 SC 781}, wherein the

         Hon’ble Apex Court has held that where the controversy is

         purely a legal one and it does not involve disputed questions of

         facts but only questions of law, then it should be decided by the

         High Court instead of dismissing it on the ground of an

         alternative remedy being available.

                     18. It is also submitted that as per the report of Circle

         Officer, findings were given that the land was raiyati,

         (Annexure-8) which is the basis of the order of DCLR and

         Additional Collector for cancellation of Jamabandi which is

         wholly impermissible, amounting to a contrary view on the

         same materials. It has furthermore been submitted that the show

         cause notice for cancellation of Jamabandi is quite mechanical

         and thus, is illegal in view of settled law laid down in Richesh
Patna High Court CWJC No.4876 of 2021 dt.21-05-2026
                                          12/21




         Anand vs. State of Bihar {2019(3) PLJR 624} and Nityanand

         Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & ors. {2020 (5) BLJ 529}

         wherein it is held that as per sec. 9 (1) of Bihar Land Mutation

         Act, 2011 and its Rule 19(3), initiation of proceedings must be

         based on satisfaction of materials before the Collector or it must

         not be in contravention of any executive instruction. Thus, it is

         contended that notices in this case do not comply with these

         requirements (Ann-14 and Ann-16 to Supplementary Affidavit).

                     Submissions on behalf of Respondent no. 3 to 7

                     19. The learned G.P.-14 for the respondent- state

         submits by referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of

         respondent no 3 to 7 that the present writ petition is vague and

         obnoxious. It is submitted that the writ petition has been filed

         for setting aside the order dated 05-12-2020 passed by D.C.L.R,

         Patna City in Jamabandi cancellation case no 04/2020-21,

         whereby and whereunder the D.C.L.R, Patna City had

         recommended the cancellation of the Jamabandi bearing No- 69

         running in the name of Basudeb Sahay, S/O - Baijnath Prasad

         and Jamabandi no 337 running in the name of Ranjit Kumar

         Sinha, S/O Akhilesh Prasad.

                     20. The learned counsel for the respondent- state

         submits that the land in question is Gaimajarua Aam Land and
Patna High Court CWJC No.4876 of 2021 dt.21-05-2026
                                          13/21




         its Nature is ‘Nala’. The D.C.L.R, Patna city vide letter dated

         05.12.2020 has sent the record of the encroachment case no-

         44/2019-2020 to the Additional Collector, Patna in view of the

         recommendation made by the Circle Officer, Patna Sadar for the

         cancellation of Jamabandi no. - 69 and 337, created in the name

         of Sri Basudev Sahay and Ranjit Kumar Sinha respectively.

                     21. It is next submitted that Additional Collector

         Patna issued a notice to the parties, where the parties appeared

         and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the land

         in question, held that the land is Gairmajarua Aam Land and in

         the survey khatiyaan it is mentioned as ‘Nala’. It is further

         submitted that the nature of land being public land and the

         creation of Jamabandi in view of converting the municipal plot

         and allotting it to any raiyat without any order passed by the

         competent authority is not tenable in the eyes of law.

                     22. The learned counsel for the respondent- state

         submits that the Additional collector, Patna, taking into account

         the facts and circumstances as aforesaid, passed order dated 16-

         08-2021 in Jamabandi Cancellation case no- 77/2020-21

         whereby the Jamabandi No - 69 and 377 has been cancelled.

                     Submissions on Behalf of Respondent No. 8

                     23. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 8
Patna High Court CWJC No.4876 of 2021 dt.21-05-2026
                                          14/21




         submits that the respondent no. 8 is the intervener petitioner and

         through an I.A bearing I.A no 03/2023 and by order no.8 dated

         08.08.2023, the intervention petition was allowed and the

         intervener petitioner was made respondent no.8 and then he

         filed a counter affidavit.

                     24. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 8

         submits that the writ application is not maintainable and is fit to

         be dismissed. Relying on the judgment passed in the case of

         Sharda Devi vs. The State of Bihar, reported in 2023(1)

         PLJR 315 it has been contended that when a right has been

         created under a statute the same may be exhausted before

         enforcing the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the

         Constitution of India. The writ petitioner has not exhausted the

         remedy, nor has he filed an appeal under section 9(6) of Bihar

         Land Mutation Act, 2011 before the Collector against an order

         passed by the Additional Collector on 16.08.2021. It has further

         been submitted that the order is well within the jurisdiction of

         the Additional Collector who passed the order of cancellation.

         Though the writ petitioner has claimed this land only on the

         basis of Hukumnama of 1944, however no date of such

         Hukumnama was mentioned and barring assertion that it was

         made in 1944, there is nothing.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4876 of 2021 dt.21-05-2026
                                          15/21




                     25. The learned counsel for the Respondent no .8

         submits that the Hukumnama of 1944 has not been annexed in

         the writ application, therefore claiming the land by the writ

         petitioner without any documentary proof of Hukumanama has

         no meaning and the same cannot be accepted. It has further been

         submitted that the State has filed a counter affidavit stating

         therein in paragraph no. 17, inter alia stating therein that

         considering the facts and records it has been concluded that the

         land in question is Gair Majurua Aam land in the survey

         Khatihan. It is mentioned as ‘Nala’. Thus, it is a public land and

         the creation of jamabandi in view of converting it into a

         municipal plot or allotting any right on it, is not tenable in law.

         There has been no rent fixed with regard to the land in question.

         Therefore, it is an admitted fact that the aforesaid land was Gair

         Majrua Aam land which has been supported by sending a reply

         under the Right to Information as well as also mentioned in the

         contempt application that the said land was Gair Majrua Aam

         land.

                     26. The learned counsel for the respondent no.8

         further submits that the judgment cited in 2014(3) PLJR 58 has

         not been applied in the case of the petitioner as the said

         judgment has been passed under Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950
Patna High Court CWJC No.4876 of 2021 dt.21-05-2026
                                          16/21




         in respect to Section 4(g) and 4(h). The learned counsel for

         respondent no. 8 submits that the Land Reforms Act, 1950 has

         not been applied in the case of the petitioner because the facts

         and circumstances of the case are different.

                     27. It has been submitted, relying upon an unreported

         judgment of a Supreme Court passed in the case of R.V.E.

         Venkata Challa Gounde vs. Arumigu V S Wesaraswami & Ors.

         decided on 08th October, 2003, that Gair Majrua lands cannot

         be converted into Raiyati lands. The learned counsel has also

         relied upon the judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 1132/2011,

         Jaspal Singh & Others vs. The State of Punjab & Others on the

         same point and also in CWJC No. 13579 of 2017, Achutanand

         Yadav vs. The State of Bihar & Others.

                     CONSIDERATION

                     28. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,

         one of the main thrust of the argument on behalf of the

         petitioner is on the fact that the even if the land was entered as

         Gair Majrua Malik with nature “Nala”, the same can change its

         nature over the period and once the entry in favour of the

         petitioner stood for long years on the basis of the Hukumnama

         and then by the civil court, the same cannot be cancelled in a

         summary proceedings by a revenue authority.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4876 of 2021 dt.21-05-2026
                                          17/21




                     29. The fact that the Jamabandi was standing in the

         name of the petitioner since long has not been disputed and now

         at the behest of the private respondents the same was cancelled

         in the midst of this proceedings by the authorities relying upon

         the entries of C S Khatiyan. It has been noted that the creation

         of Jamabandi was done by the State authorities and they had not

         questioned the same till it was challenged by the private

         respondent.

                     30. The act of cancellation of jamabandi during the

         pendency of the writ petition in the opinion of this Court

         amounts to overreaching the authority of this Court and such act

         cannot be said to be an isolated act as the authorities were well

         aware of the pendency of the writ application yet after 6 months

         of the filing of the present case, it had the audacity to pass an

         order when the writ petitioner had already approached this

         Court for adjudication of the grievances.

                     31. It is a well-settled law that when a dispute is

         pending before a Court of Justice no action should be taken by

         an Authority which would disturb the Court of Justice. It would

         be apt to refer to the Full Bench judgment of this Hon'ble Court

         passed in the case of The King vs. Parmanand and Others,

         reported in AIR (36) 1949 Patna 222, paragraph '23' of the said
Patna High Court CWJC No.4876 of 2021 dt.21-05-2026
                                          18/21




         judgment observes as under:-

                                 "........It is a cardinal principle that when a
                                 matter is pending for decision before a
                                 Court of justice nothing should be done
                                 which might disturb the free course of justice
                                 and this Court will discountenance any
                                 attempt on the part of any executive official,
                                 however high he may be, to prejudge the
                                 merits of a case and to usurp the functions of
                                 the Court which has got seisin of the case..
                                 …"
                         32. In view of the aforesaid, the passing of the

         impugned order dated 16.08.2021 amounts to overreaching the

         authority and also, in view of the aforesaid judgment, is held to

         be illegal and therefore is set aside.

                         33. Now, the question as to whether the Municipal

         entries can be ignored and the same can be cancelled by

         cancelling the Jamabandi in favour of the petitioner. At this

         juncture the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the

         petitioner in the case of Umesh Jha v The State and Another,

         (Supra) to contend that the collector under section 4(h) of Bihar

         Land Reforms Act has jurisdiction to dispute the settlement and

         to determine its question of existence only if it is made after

         01.01.1946 and in the present case, such a settlement was made

         by the ex-landlord long before this concerned date, thereby
Patna High Court CWJC No.4876 of 2021 dt.21-05-2026
                                          19/21




         rendering its jurisdiction as wrongly exercised, seems to be apt.

         In the opinion of this court also, any Jamabandi created on the

         basis of a settlement said to have taken place way back prior to

         vesting of the Jamindari, even if the same was not permissible in

         law, the same needed to be challenged either immediately or if

         with delay then the proper forum of approaching the competent

         civil court would be the remedy for cancellation of the

         settlement first and then cancellation of Jamabandi.

                         34. Thus, annulling the Jamabandi in effect

         annulled the settlement and subsequent transfers and the

         Collector under the Act does not have any authority to question

         its veracity, if the same is disputed. Para 31 of the aforesaid

         judgment of Umesh Jha v The State and Another, (Supra) is

         relevant and is reproduced here -

                                                  “For the reasons given above, I

                                 am of the opinion the Additional Collector
                                 had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide
                                 the question that the settlement in the
                                 present case, which is prima facie shown to
                                 have been made much before the First day of
                                 January, 1946, was actually made after that
                                 date and his order annulling the settlement
                                 was, therefore, without jurisdiction. This is,
                                 therefore, a fit case where a writ of
                                 certiorari should issue quashing the order of
Patna High Court CWJC No.4876 of 2021 dt.21-05-2026
                                          20/21




                                 the Additional Collector passed in that
                                 behalf. ”
                         35. The law on cancellation of long standing

         Jamabandi is no more res integra. There are a series of

         judgments which goes on to hold that any long standing

         Jamabandi cannot be cancelled in a summary proceeding. The

         case of Khiru Gope & Ors. (Supra) where a design bench of

         this Court dealing with the power of the Collector in

         cancellation of Jamabandi. Para- 16 of the said Judgment is

         reproduced here for reference, which completely covers the case

         of the writ petitioner.

                                 “ 16. The view taken in Harihar Singh’s
                                 case (1978 BBCJ (HC) 323) has been
                                 reaffirmed by another Bench decision of this
                                 Court in the case of Jamaluddin Ahmed v.
                                 Subdivisional        Officer,   Khagaria   (1979
                                 BBCJ (HC) 605). On the strength of these
                                 two Bench decisions of this Court, it is
                                 obvious that the Land Reforms Deputy
                                 Collector had no jurisdiction or power to
                                 cancel the Jamabandi and remove the names
                                 of Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 from the tenant’s
                                 register, the effect whereof in a way was to
                                 cancel the settlement by the ex-intermediary
                                 in favour of the Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2.”
                         36. For the reasons stated above, the case of the
             Patna High Court CWJC No.4876 of 2021 dt.21-05-2026
                                                       21/21




                      writ petitioner is fully covered with that of the ratio of the case

                      of Khiru Gope and the judgment on which the said Court relied

                      upon, i.e., Harihar Singh vs. The State of Bihar, reported in

                      1978 BBCJ (HC) 323 to the extent that the Additional Collector

                      does not have the authority to cancel the long standing

                      Jamabandi in favour of the ancestors of the writ petitioner and

                      therefore the order dated 05.12.2020 Passed by the District

                      Collector Land Reforms is set aside.

                                      37. In view of the above, both the impugned orders

                      dated 05.12.2020 and 16.08.2021 stands quashed.

                                      38. The writ application is allowed. The Jamabandi

                      standing in the name of the petitioner’s father be restored and

                      the name of the writ petitioner be substituted therein. The State

                      is further directed not to disturb the peaceful possession of the

                      petitioner over the land in question.

                                      39. The pending Interlocutory applications, if any,

                      stands disposed of.




                                               (Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                08.05.2026
Uploading Date          21.05.2026
Transmission Date       NA