Patna High Court

Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Kumar Choudhary @ Bikas Kr. ChoudharyversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 31 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED
Bench: PURNENDU SINGH

Holding

The court held that the Circle Officer’s mutation order was ultra vires and was quashed, as the cancellation order was obtained by fraud and the caretaker had no legal interest in the land.

Summary

The petitioners, descendants of late Bhuvneshwar Prasad Choudhary, claimed ownership of land recorded in Jamabandi No. 5299 based on a 1995 gift deed. Respondent No. 9, through caretaker Abhas Kumar Jha, obtained an ex parte order from the Additional Collector cancelling the jamabandi, alleging the land belonged to her and relying on an unregistered relinquishment deed, despite a pending title suit (No. 121/2018). The petitioners challenged the cancellation, the subsequent appeal dismissal by the Collector, and the Circle Officer's mutation order, arguing that the caretaker had no interest and that the orders were obtained by fraud and in violation of Section 6(12) of the Bihar Mutation Act. The court, relying on the Apex Court’s decision in Himalaya Vintrade Private Ltd. v. Mohd. Zahid and the principle that judgments obtained by fraud are nullities (as reiterated in Ram Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh), held that the Circle Officer’s order was beyond jurisdiction and set it aside, while noting that the dispute over title must be decided by a civil court. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed without granting the reliefs sought, and the parties were directed to approach the appropriate civil forum for title determination.

Issues considered

The validity of the jamabandi cancellation order issued by the Additional Collector on an application filed by a caretaker lacking any interest in the property.
Whether the Circle Officer had jurisdiction to pass a mutation order while a title suit was pending, in view of Section 6(12) of the Bihar Mutation Act.
Whether the orders obtained through alleged fraud and non‑disclosure of material facts should be set aside as nullities.

Subjects

Jamabandi
Mutation
Land revenue
Caretaker
Fraud
Title suit
Writ petition
Article 226
Quash order
Jurisdiction

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.881 of 2026
======================================================
1. Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Kumar Choudhary @ Bikas Kr. Choudhary S/o
Ravish Chandra Choudhary and late Lakshmi Devi.
2. Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar Choudhary, S/o Ravish Chandra Choudhary
and late Lakshmi Devi.
3. Sadhna Kumari, D/o Ravish Chandra Choudhary and late Lakshmi Devi,
4. Ravish Chandra Choudhary, Son of Late Bhuvaneshwar Prasad Choudhary,
All are Resident of Ward No. 04 Raniganj Road, Rampur (East), P.O.
Rampur, P.S. Forbesganj, District- Araria, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue
and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea, Bihar.
3. The Collector, Araria District, Araria, Bihar.
4. The Additional Collector, Araria, Bihar.
5. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms (D.C.L.R.), Forbesganj, Araria, Bihar.
6. The Circle Officer, Forbesganj, Araria, Bihar.
7. The Halka Karamchari, Forbesganj, Araria, Bihar.
8. Abhas Kumar Jha, Son of Sri Arvind Jha, Resident of Village- Mow
Dhaneshpur East, P.O. and P.S. Vidyapati Nagar, District- Samastipur, Bihar,
presently residing at C/o Harendra Pd. Thakur, P.O. Dhalbajja, P.S.
Forbesganj, District Araria, Bihar.
9. Sumitra Devi, Wife of Late Mahendra Prasad Choudhary, daughter of late
Bhuvneshwar Prasad Choudhary, Resident of Sarda Sadan, Opposite
Tapasya Complex, Boring Road, P.S. Sri Krishnapuri, District- Patna-
800001.
10. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Kumar Saurav, Son of Late Mahendra Prasad
Choudhary, Resident of Sarda Sadan Opposite Tapasya Complex, Boring
Road, P.S. Sri Krishnapuri, District- Patna- 800001.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ankit Katriar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate
Patna High Court CWJC No.881 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
2/12

======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 31-01-2026
Heard Mr. Ankit Katriar, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Krishna Kant Singh,

learned counsel for the State.

2. Petitioners have inter alia prayed for following

reliefs in the paragraphs No.1 of the writ petition:-

“1.1 For issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash the Order dated 20/06/2023 passed by
the Additional Collector, Araria in Jamabandi Cancellation
Case No. 264/2022 wherein and whereby the application
for cancellation of jamabandi filed on behalf of Respondent
No. 08 has arbitrarily and illegally been allowed.
1.2. For issuance of a writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash the consequential Order dated
25/05/2024 passed by the Circle Officer, Forbesganj in
Mutation Case No. 5485/2023-24.
1.3. For issuance of writ in the nature of
certiorari to quash the Order dated 23/09/2025 passed by
the Collector, Araria in Jamabandi Appeal Case No.
51/2023 wherein and whereby the Petitioners' appeal has
arbitrarily, and illegally been dismissed.
1.4. For issuance of writ in the nature of
mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities to restore
Jamabandi No. 5299 in the name of the Petitioners.
1.5. For issuance of writ in the nature of
mandamus staying the operation, implementation, and
execution of the Order dated 23/09/2025 passed by the
Collector, Araria in Jamabandi Appeal Case No. 51/2023 &
Order dated 20/06/2023 passed by the Additional Collector,
Araria in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 264/2022
during pendency of the writ application.
1.6. For any other relief or reliefs for which
the Petitioners may be deemed entitled to in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the property in

question bearing Khata No.1487, Khesra nos.1501, 1502,

measuring an area of 58 decimals and 26 decimals, total 84
Patna High Court CWJC No.881 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
3/12

decimals, situated at Mauja Rampur, Anchal Forbesganj was

originally purchased on 18.06.1973 by late Bhuvneshwar Prasad

Choudhary, grandfather of petitioner Nos. 01 to 03 and father of

Petitioner No. 04, vide Sale Deed No. 3261. Subsequently, he

executed a registered Gift Deed No. 7446 dated 27.11.1995 in

favour of his eldest daughter-in-law, late Laxmi Devi (mother of

Petitioner Nos. 01 to 03 and wife of Petitioner No. 04),

conveying 42 decimals out of the total 84 decimals. On the basis

of the said Gift Deed, Jamabandi No. 5299 was opened in the

name of late Laxmi Devi. Rent was fixed by the authorities and

the petitioners have remained in peaceful possession for nearly

three decades, having constructed a residential house, shops,

and installed a mobile tower with electricity connection. Dispute

arose when Respondent No. 09 (sister of Petitioner No. 04 and

paternal aunt of Petitioner Nos. 01 to 03), along with

Respondent No. 10, began claiming an illegal share by

threatening the petitioners and thereafter filed Title Suit No.

121/2018 before the Court of Sub-Judge I, Araria, seeking

partition in the said property.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioners submitted that so far as jamabandi No.5299 which is

standing in the name of late Lakshmi Devi, mother of
Patna High Court CWJC No.881 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
4/12

petitioners no.1, 2 and 3 and wife of petitioner no.4 is

concerned, the same was gifted by father-in-law of late Lakshmi

Devi, namely, late Bhuneshwar Prasad Choudhay, grand-father

of petitioners no.1, 2 and 3 and father of petitioner no.4, by a

registered gift deed no.7446 dated 27.11.1995, out of which title

suit no.121 of 2018 was filed by respondent no.9, namely,

Sumitra Devi D/o late Bhuneshwar Prasad Choudhay and sister-

in-law of late Lakshmi Devi, seeking partition. However, the

application filed for cancellation of jamabandi before the

Additional Collector was filed by an outsider, namely Abahsh

Kumar Jha, allegedly on the ground that he is caretaker of said

Sumitra Devi/respondent no.9. Learned counsel further

submitted that the aforesaid title suit was later on withdrawn on

19.08.2023, which finds reference in the order of the Circle

officer dated 25.05.2024. Learned counsel further submitted

that the order dated 20.06.2023 passed by the Additional

Collector, Araria in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.264/2022

on the basis of application made by a person, Abhas Kumar Jha,

claiming himself to be the caretaker of the property of

respondent no.9 is not in accordance with law. He has relied

upon a judgment of the Apex Court in case of Himalaya

Vintrade Private Limited Versus Mohd. Zahid and another
Patna High Court CWJC No.881 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
5/12

reported in (2022) 13 SCC 649.

5. On the above facts, learned counsel submitted that

the orders passed by the Additional Collector and the Collector

are required to be interfered with on the ground that though

there is no interference with Jamabandi no.5019 standing in the

name of late Bhuneshwar Prasad Choudhay but without

considering the above fact, the jamabandi no.5299 standing in

the name of late Laxmi Devi, mother of petitioners no.1, 2 and 3

is also not required to be cancelled and to that extent, the

Additional Collector and the Collector have committed error of

record. Learned counsel further submitted that in light of the

sub-section(12) of Section 6 of Mutation Act, the Circle Officer

or other revenue authorities were not competent or having

jurisdiction to create jamabandi, once title Suit No.121/2018

filed by respondent no.9 was pending.

6. Per contra, Mr. Krishana Kant Singh, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that any

person has right to file application before the appropriate

authorities, if it comes to his knowledge that on the basis of

illegal information, jamabandi has been created and therefore,

the same requires cancellation as per Section 9 of the Bihar

Mutation Act, 2011. Referring to Section 9, he submitted that
Patna High Court CWJC No.881 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
6/12

the Additional Collector don’t have jurisdiction to verify the

person, whether he is actual owner or does he have any concern

or interest in the said property and as such, the Additional

Collector and the Collector have not committed any mistake

either error of record or error of law insofar as upholding the

jamabandi no.5019 which stands in the name of late

Bhuneshwar Prasad Choudhay. However, the petitioners who

are seeking their right from the said jamabandi to be the legal

heirs of late Bhuneshwar Prasad Choudhay have challenged the

said order which is without merit. So far as jamabandi no.5299

is concerned, it is admitted position that in respect of the land in

question mentioned in the said jamabandi, title suit no.121 of

2018 was filed before the learned District Court, Araria by

respondent no.9/Sumitra Devi and said Sumitra Devi has

obtained favourable order from the office of the Circle Officer

in mutation case no.5485 of 2023-24. Mr. Singh emphatically

submitted that the order dated 25.05.2024 passed by the Circle

Officer which affects the right of the petitioners, has been

challenged straight away in the present writ petition and the

petitioners have not availed the remedy before the appropriate

authority and as such, the writ petition is totally misconceived

and is not fit to be entertained by this Court.
Patna High Court CWJC No.881 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
7/12

7. Heard the parties.

8. The question regarding entertaining application

filed by a caretaker who has no interest in the property on the

basis of any possession in respect of the said property has been

settled by the Apex Court in case of Himalaya Vintrade Private

Limited Versus Mohd. Zahid and another reported in (2022) 13

SCC 649, which is reproduced hereinafter:

“2. The facts on record are not in dispute. The appellant-
defendant initially entered into an agreement to sell of
the subject property in question on 23-2-2018 and after a
formal deed of conveyance finally a sale deed was
executed on 30-9-2019 and his right of ownership over
the subject property in question became absolute.
3. Respondent 1 plaintiff filed a suit with the following
prayer:
(a) For a declaration that the plaintiff is a lawful
occupier as caretaker/servant of the sole owner of
the Schedule A property and occupier and adverse
possessor of the Schedule B property.
(b) For the permanent injunction restraining
defendant to disturb or evict the peaceful possession
of the plaintiff otherwise than by the due course of
law.
Schedule A of property
All that an area of land admeasuring 16 kh. 3 ch. 4
sq ft be the same and a little more or less with three
storeyed residential building have each floor are
5000 sq ft more or less and some vacant possession
lying and situated at Premises No. 217, Lower
Circular Road and now known as 217 A.J.C. Bose
Road, Kolkata-700 017 PS Beniapukur, Dist-South
24 Parganas.
Schedule B property
All that three rooms and one godown along with
some vacant land at premises No. 217, Lower
Circular Road and now known as 217 A.J.C. Bose
Road, Kolkata-700 017 P.S. Beniapukur.
4. It was a specific case of Respondent 1 plaintiff that he
Patna High Court CWJC No.881 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
8/12

was in possession of the subject property as a
caretaker/servant. Paras 2, 4 and 6 of the plaint are
reproduced hereunder:
“2. That the plaintiff is a servant/caretaker of the
“A” schedule property appointed by Mirza
Habibullah Khaleeli and the said sole owners of the
said property allow the plaintiff for use and residing
all that three rooms and one godown along with
some vacant land which is more fully and
particularly described in the “B” schedule below
lying and situated at premises No. 217, Lower
Circular Road and now known as 217 A.J.C. Bose
Road, Kolkata-700 017 P.S. Beniapukur is the
subject-matter of the suit within the jurisdiction of
this learned Court.
***
4. That on all of a sudden the defendants and their
men and agents with other anti-social elements
trying to take or enter into the plaintiff's rooms i.e.
Schedule B property with an ulterior motive they
trying to dispossess the plaintiff from his lawful
occupation as servant/caretaker with a view to grab
the occupation/residence but the defendant is not
success to fulfil their ill desired, for the intervention
of the local people and their strong support the
defendants could not succeed there to oust and
dispossess the plaintiff.
***
6. That the right title interested possession of the
plaintiff in the suit property as well as lawful right
of servant and caretaker and claiming as adverse
possessor of the Schedule B property even thus been
clouded for unlawful act of the defendants so the
plaintiff is compelled instituted the instant suit
against the defendant for declaration
that the defendant be not ousted from the Schedule B
property i.e. suit property other than due process of
law and for permanent injunction against the
defendant not to disturb the peaceful possession of
the suit property and also not disturb or the egress
and ingress of the suit property.”
5. After the notice was served the application under
Order 7 Rule 11CPC came to be filed at the behest
of the present appellant-defendant with an objection
that the suit proceedings at the instance of
Respondent 1 plaintiff who had pleaded himself to
be a caretaker/servant, acquires no interest in the
subject property irrespective of his long possession,
is not maintainable under the law and as regards the
Patna High Court CWJC No.881 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
9/12

plea of adverse possession is concerned, it lacks
material particulars.
6. The trial Judge dismissed the application on the
premise that these are the subject-matter of disputes
which can be examined only after the written
statement being filed at the behest of the present
appellant-defendant and is not within the scope of
Order 7 Rule 11CPC and the order of trial Judge
came to be confirmed by the High Court by the
impugned order [Himalaya Vintrade (P) Ltd. v.
Mohd. Zahid, 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 2621] assailed
in the present proceedings.
7. After we heard the counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the material on record, in
our considered view, the trial court has committed a
manifest error in appreciating the pleadings on
record from the plaint filed at the instance of
Respondent 1 plaintiff who as a caretaker/servant
can never acquire interest in the property
irrespective of his long possession and the
caretaker/servant has to give possession forthwith
on demand and so far as the plea of adverse
possession is concerned as it lacks material
particulars and the plaint does not disclose the
cause of action for institution of the suit.
8. In our considered view, the order of the learned
trial Judge which has been confirmed by the High
Court impugned in the instant proceeding is not
sustainable on the first principles of law.
9. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is
allowed. The order [Himalaya Vintrade (P) Ltd. v.
Mohd. Zahid, 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 2621] of the
High Court is, hereby, quashed and set aside. The
plaint No. T.S. 150/2019, on the file of learned 2nd
Civil Judge (Jr. Div) at Sealdah is, accordingly,
rejected.
10. Since we have rejected the plaint in reference to
the proceeding initiated, we direct Respondent 1
plaintiff to hand over, vacant and peaceful
possession of the subject property in question free
from all encumbrances within three months.
11. If Respondent 1 plaintiff fails to hand over
possession, the appellant-defendant will be at
liberty to take the recourse as known to the law.”

9. Record reveals that Respondent No. 09, through
Patna High Court CWJC No.881 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
10/12

her caretaker, Abhas Kumar Jha/Respondent No. 08, filed

Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 264/2022 without disclosing

the pendency of Title Suit No. 121/2018, claiming that the land

belonged to Sumitra Devi and obtained an ex parte order dated

20.06.2023 from the Additional Collector, Araria, who cancelled

the petitioners’ jamabandi on the basis of an unregistered deed

of relinquishment and alleged absence of revenue records. The

Additional Collector further directed the termination of

Jamabandi No. 5299, with restoration to the previous Jamabandi

No. 5019. Aggrieved by the said order of the Additional

Collector, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector,

Araria, bearing Mutation Appeal Case No.51/2023, however, the

appeal was also rejected vide order dated 23.09.2025. In the

meantime, respondent no.9 applied for mutation of the land in

question which was finally allowed vide order dated 25.05.2024

by the Circle Officer, Forbesganj in Mutation Case

No.5485/2023-24 in view of the aforesaid order dated

20.06.2023 of the Additional Collector. Meanwhile, Respondent

No. 09 withdrew Title Suit No. 121/2018 after securing the

adverse revenue order.

10. In the facts of the case, I find that judgment or

decree obtained by fraud is to be treated as a nullity, non-
Patna High Court CWJC No.881 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
11/12

disclosure of the relevant and material documents with a view to

obtain an undue advantage would amount to fraud.

11. Recently the Apex court taking into

consideration its earlier judgments has held in paragraph no.21

in case of Ram Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 806, which is inter alia as under:

“21. This Court, in the case of S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By LRs. Vs.
Jagannath (Dead) by LRs and others has held that
non-disclosure of the relevant and material
documents with a view to obtain an undue
advantage would amount to fraud. It has been held
that the judgment or decree obtained by fraud is to
be treated as a nullity. We find that respondent No.9
has not only suppressed a material fact but has also
tried to mislead the High Court. On this ground
also, the present appeal deserves to be allowed.”
.

12. I have perused the order passed by the

Additional Collector, Araria in Jamabandi Cancellation Case

No.264 of 2022 and I find that the Additional Collector has not

committed any mistake in upholding the jamabandi no.5019

which was upheld by the Collector, Araria vide order dated

23.09.2025 passed in Jambandi Appeal Case No.51 of 2023. I

don't find that the petitioners are in any way affected by the said

order. However, so far as order dated 25.05.2024 passed by the

Circle Officer in Mutation Case No.5485/2023-24 is concerned,

the petitioners have liberty to avail appropriate remedy, also in

the background that Sumitra Devi / respondent no.9 after having
Patna High Court CWJC No.881 of 2026 dt.31-01-2026
12/12

filed Title Suit No.121 of 2018 has withdrawn the same after the

order by which the Circle Officer in a misconceived manner has

passed the order. The Circle officer could not have entertained

the application or would have allowed the same when

admittedly he has recorded that Title Suit No.121 of 2018 was

withdrawn before passing of the order dated 25.05.2024 in view

of the bar contained in sub-section(12) of Section 6 of Bihar

Mutation Act. Accordingly, the order dated 25.05.2024 passed

by the Circle Officer is hereby quashed and set aside.

13. The parties, if so advised, may avail

appropriate remedy before the competent civil court having

jurisdiction for declaration of their title in accordance with law

as disputed question of title cannot be decided by this Court

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

14. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 06.02.2026
Transmission Date NA

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…