Jharkhand High Court
Anurag Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 21 July, 2026
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2026:JHHC:21748
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Con. Case(civil) No.1497 of 2025
------
Anurag Kumar, son of Late Bimal Kumar, resident of 317-B, Road
No.3, Ashok Nagar, P.O-Doranda, P.S.-Argora, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Sri Chandrashekhar, the Secretary, Department of Land
Reforms, Revenue and Registration, Govt. of Jharkhand
having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S-
Dhurwa, District- Ranchi.
3. Sri Anjani Kumar Mishra, the Commissioner Ranchi, P.O and
P.S-Ranchi, District Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. Sri Manjul Nath Bhajantri, the Deputy Commissioner,
Ranchi, P.O and P.S-Ranchi, and District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)
5. Sri Mukesh Kumar, the District Collector Land Reforms,
Ranchi, P.O and P.S-Ranchi and District Ranchi (Jharkhand)
6. Sri Rajesh Kumar, the Circle Officer, Nagri, P.O and P.S-
Nagri and District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)
.... ... Respondent(s)
With
W.P.(C) No. 953 of 2024
------
Anurag Kumar, son of Late Bimal Kumar, resident of 317-B, Road
No.3, Ashok Nagar, P.O-Doranda, P.S.-Argora, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Department of Land Reforms, Revenue and
Registration, Govt. of Jharkhand having its office at Project
Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S- Dhurwa, District- Ranchi.
3. The Commissioner Ranchi, P.O and P.S-Ranchi, District
Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O and P.S-Ranchi, and
District-Ranchi (Jharkhand)
5. The District Collector Land Reforms, Ranchi, P.O and P.S-
Ranchi and District Ranchi (Jharkhand)
6. The Circle Officer, Nagri, P.O and P.S-Nagri and District-
Ranchi (Jharkhand)
... ... Respondent(s)
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
——
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Malityar, Advocate
Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate
1
For the State : Ms. Amit Kumar, SC (Mines)-II
——
st
13/ 21 July, 2026
1. Heard the Mr. D.K. Malityar, Advocate assisted by
Mr. Anurag Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Amit
Kumar, SC (Mines)-II for the respondent-state.
2. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order
dated 06.06.2023 contain in Memo. No. 3029 (ii) RA dated
09.06.2023 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by
respondent No.4-the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, whereby the
Respondent No.4 ordered restriction on the sale and purchase of
land in Mouza Pundag, Thana No. 228, Khata No.383, Plot
No.411 and 443, having area 3.76 acres. He also prayed for
setting aside the order dated 16.05.2023 passed in Sandigdh
Jamabandi DCTR-Case No. DTCR 132/21-22 (Annexure-4 to the
writ petition) passed by respondent No.4 – the Deputy
Commissioner, Ranchi whereby the proceeding under Section
4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 is initiated.
3. The petitioner has filed Cont. Case(civil) No.1497 of
2025 on 06.11.2025 for initiation of contempt proceeding against
the respondents for violating the interim order dated 10.09.2025
passed in W.P.(C) No. 953 of 2024 of this court.
4. The dispute, in the present case, relates to land in
Mouza Pundag, Thana No. 228, Khata No.383, Plot No.411 and
443 having area 3.76 acres and 2.68 acres respectively which
were settled through registered deed dated 02.09.1944 and
Jamabandi running since then in the name Sayyad Moinuddin
Shah. The said land thereafter was purchased by Ganpat Mahto
through registered sale deed on 28.04.1954 and land mutation
was done in 1958-59 and rent receipt was issued. Thereafter,
legal heirs of Ganpat Mahto sold the said land to Mahamaya Grih
Nirman Swabalambi Sahkari Samitti by way of registered sale
deed on 15.06.2004. The Co-operative Society came into
peaceful possession over the said land. Mutation of the land was
done in the name of Co-operative Society and register-ll was
opened and they paid land revenue to the Government of
2
Jharkhand. Co-operative Society sold the aforesaid land to its
members including the petitioner through sale deed in 2005 and
land were mutated in their names and the petitioner and other
member, who also paid the land revenue till date.
Further, in Sandigdh Jamabandi Case No. DTCR 132/21-22,
respondent No.4 vide order dated 16.05.2023 ordered to initiate
the proceeding under section 4(h) of the Act. Also, vide order
dated 06.06.2023 contain in Memo. No. 3029 (ii) RA dated
09.06.2023 respondent No.4 ordered restriction on the sale and
purchase of the land in question.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that order
dated 16.05.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi in
Sandigdh Jamabandi Case No. DTCR 132/21-22 is in complete
violation of section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, as
in Case No. 150/02-03 TR No. 25/04-05 (Ganpat Mahto vs the
State of Jharkhand) already setup an inquiry under section 4(h)
of the Bihar Land Reforms Act and the then Deputy
Commissioner passed an order in accordance with law on
17.03.2005 in respect of the said land and cleared the aforesaid
land from the rigors of Section 4(h) of Bihar Land Reforms Act.
Now in 2023 again the Deputy Commissioner has ordered similar
inquiry i.e after a long period. He further submits that as per
section 4(h) of Bihar land reforms Act, the Collector has power to
make inquiry in any settlement done on or after 01.01.1946 and
not prior to that, but herein, in the case of the petitioner the land
in question were settled through registered deed dated
02.09.1944 and Jamabandi was running since then. Thus, the
Respondent No.4 in violation of section 4(h), has setup the
inquiry. He further submits that by the order dated 06.06.2023
the Deputy Commissioner himself reviewed his own order dated
28.12.2022 which is not permissible in law as there is no such
provision under the Bihar Land Reform Act, 1950. He relied on
Judgment of Supreme Court in Kuntesh Gupta v. Hindu Kanya
Mahavidyalaya, (1987) 4 SCC 525 and submits that quasi-
Judicial authority is not competent to review its own order in
absence of express statutory power to that effect.
3
6. Learned Counsel for the respondent-state submits that
since the petitioner had obtained the order for removal of the
details of the land in question from the prohibited list/Negative
List of NDGRS by suppressing the fact regarding pendency of the
proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act,
1950 being Sandigdh Jamabandi DCTR Case No.54 of 2021-22
(State Vs Anurag Kumar), Sandigdh Jamabandi DCTR Case
No.132 of 2021-22 (State Vs Anurag Kumar) hence, the Deputy
Commissioner, Ranchi vide order dated 09.06.2023 after
obtaining legal opinion upon the matter from the Government
Pleader, Ranchi vide Letter No.82 dated 26.05.2023, recalled the
previous order contained in Memo No.6702 dated 30.12.2022
and stayed the implementation of said order till the final disposal
of proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act
initiated against the petitioner. He further submits that the land
under Khata No.383, Plot No.411, area 5.36 Acres and Plot
No.443 area 8.85 Acres of Village Pundag, Thana No.-228,
District Ranchi stands recorded as Gairmajurwa Malik land under
the landholder Baralal Kandrap Nath Shahdeo and the nature of
the same as per the record of right is entered as parti Kadam.
The Zamindari return submitted by the outgoing proprietor:
Chintamani Trust with respect of land pertaining to Khata No.383
of Village Pundag, showing settlement of land in the names of Six
Raiyats and it would apparent from aforementioned zamindari
return that, the land in question, is not shown to have been
settled with Sayyad Moinuddin Shah or Ganpat Mahto as
contended by the petitioner. He relied on the judgment of Hon’ble
Division Bench of this court in LPA No.318 of 2022 and analogous
cases (The State of Jharkhand & Ors. v. Md. Zulfan Ansari) and
submits that in the light of the aforesaid order, the instant writ
application is not maintainable.
7. After hearing the parties and perusing the record,
especially the impugned orders, I find that vide order dated
16.05.2025 the Deputy commissioner, Ranchi has setup an
inquiry under section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reform Act, 1950.
Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reform Act, 1950 stipulates by
4
conferring power to the Deputy Commissioner that if it comes to
the notice of the concerned Deputy Commissioner that the land
has been transferred only to frustrate the very object of the Act,
1950, then an enquiry is required to be conducted by providing
opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and thereafter if
a conclusion has been arrived at and the land in question has
been transferred only to overreach the object of the Act, the
transfer is to be annulled. The cut-off date as prescribed in the
statute is 1st of January 1946 and thereafter.
It is necessary to refer the provision of Section 4 (h)
of the Act, 1950, which reads hereunder as:
“4(h) The Collector shall have power to make inquiries in respect of any
transfer including the settlement or lease of any land comprised in such
estate or tenure or the transfer of any kind of interest in any building used
primarily as office or cutchery for the collection of rent of such estate or
tenure or part thereof, and if he is satisfied that such transfer was made
[at any time after the first day of January, 1946, with the object of defeat-
ing any provisions of this Act or causing loss to the State or obtaining
higher compensation there under the Collector may, after giving reasona-
ble notice to the parties concerned to appear and be heard annul such
transfer, dispossess the person claiming under it and take possession of
such property on such terms as may appear to the Collector to be fair and
equitable;] [Provided that an appeal against an order of the Collector un-
der this clause if preferred within sixty days of such order, shall lie to the
prescribed authority not below the rank of the Collector of a district who
shall dispose of the same according to the prescribed procedure] Provided
further that no order annulling a transfer shall take effect nor shall pos-
session be taken in pursuance of it unless such an order has been con-
firmed by the State Government.]”
8. A cut-off date has been inserted for conducting such
enquiry by the Deputy Commissioner as per the Act, 1950 i.e.
the enquiry is required to be conducted if the transfer has been
made on or after 01.01.1946. Here in the instant case the land in
question were settled through registered deed dated 02.09.1944
and Jamabandi was running since then in the name Sayyad
Moinuddin Shah, which is much prior to the cut-off date.
9. In this case the Deputy commissioner has reviewed
his earlier order dated 17.03.2005. Review is a creature of a
statue. If in a particular statue the remedy of review is not
provided, any authority cannot invoke such jurisdiction. The Bihar
Land Reforms Act does not provide any review jurisdiction to any
authority. In absence of conferment of such jurisdiction the
Deputy commissioner could not have invoked the same and set
aside his own order. In this context it is necessary to refer to
5
judgment of CTO v. Makkad Plastic Agencies, (2011) 4 SCC
750, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that review is a
creature of the statute and such an order of review could be
passed only when an express power of review is provided in the
statute.
10. The position of law is well settled that any Authority if
conferred with a power, is required to exercise such power under
the mandates of the Statute and if power is not vested upon an
Authority and even then, if the action is being taken, the same
suffers from jurisdictional error. It is further settled position of
law that if any decision has been taken by any Authority not
having competency to take such decision, the said decision is
nullity in the eye of law.
11. The issue of jurisdictional error has well been
considered by Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No.786 of
2018 (The State of Jharkhand & Ors. Vrs. Izhar Hussain),
wherein the Act of 1950 has been considered in its entirety by
taking aid of the order passed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court in
the case of Laxman Sahni vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported
in 1990(1) PLJR 170, Sri Rama Prasad Singh & Ors. Vs. The
State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1990 (1) PLJR 165 and the
judgment rendered in the case of Brighu Nath Sahay Singh &
Ors. Vs. Md. Khalilur Rahamn & Ors. reported in (1996) 1
PLJR (SC) 65. For ready reference, para-16 of the aforesaid
judgment is required to be referred herein, which reads as
follows:-
“16. This Court, in order to adjudicate this legal issue deem it fit and
proper to go across the preamble of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950,
which says that for the transference to the State of the interests of propri-
etors and tenure-holders in land and of the mortgagees and lessees of
such interests including interests in trees, forests, fisheries, jalkars, fer-
ries, hats, bazars, mines and minerals and to provide for the constitution
of a Land Commission for the State of Bihar with powers to advise the
State Government on the agrarian policy to be pursued by the State Gov-
ernment consequent upon such transference and for other matters con-
nected therewith. The intention behind the proviso to provide for the
transference to the State of the interests of proprietors and tenure holders
in land and of mortgagees and lessees of such interests as enshrined in
the directive principles of our Constitution of India under Articles 39 (B)
and 39(C).
Section 4 of the Act, 1950 provides consequences of the vesting of an
estate or tenure in the State. Subsection 4(b) thereof says that all rents,
cesses and royalties accruing in respect of lands comprised in such estate
or tenure on or after the date of vesting shall be payable to the State and
not to the outgoing proprietor or tenure-holder and any payment made in
contravention of this clause shall not be binding on the State Government.
6
Subsection 4 (h) provides power upon the Collector to make inquiries in
respect of any transfer including the settlement or lease of any land com-
prised in such estate or tenure or the transfer of any kind of interest in
any building used primarily as office or cutchery for the collection of rent
of such estate or tenure or part thereof, and if he is satisfied that such
transfer was made at any time after the 1st day of January, 1946, with
the object of defeating any provisions of this Act or causing loss to the
State or obtaining higher compensation thereunder the Collector may, af-
ter giving reasonable notice to the 17 parties concerned to appear and be
heard annul such transfer, dispossess the person claiming under it and
take possession of such property on such terms as may appear to the Col-
lector to be fair and equitable; provided that an appeal against an order of
the Collector under this clause if preferred within sixty days of such order,
shall lie to the prescribed authority not below the rank of the Collector of a
district who shall dispose of the same according to the prescribed proce-
dure and further provided that no order annulling a transfer shall take ef-
fect nor shall possession be taken in pursuance of it unless such an order
has been confirmed by the State Government. It is, thus, evident that
Section 4(h) confers power upon the Collector to effect any transfer if
such transfer is found to be for the purpose of frustrating the intent and
purport of the Act in respect of transfer made any time after 1st January,
1946.
The issue pertaining to applicability of provision of Section 4 (h) fell for
consideration before Patna High Court in the case of Laxman Sahni Vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1990 (1) PLJR 170, wherein it has been
laid down to the effect that recourse for cancellation of Jamabandi under
the Sections can be taken only where any estate or tenure or any part
thereof vests in 18 the State. Section 4(h) clothes the Collector with juris-
diction to make enquiries in respect of transfers made any time after 1st
January, 1946.
Further, in the case of Sri Rama Prasad Singh & Ors Vs. The State of Bi-
har & Ors. reported in 1990 (1) PLJR 165, it has been held that annulment
of settlement made in 1945 on the assumption that it was made within
the family to deprive the valuable land is mere presumption. On a plain
reading of the provision it is obvious that the Collector while exercising
power to make inquiries in respect of any transfer must be satisfied that
such transfer was made at any time after 1st January, 1946. No finding
recorded that the transfer was made after 1st January, 1946. The Land
Reforms Deputy Collector being an adjudicating body could not recom-
mend for such annulment and had to arrive at his own conclusions in
terms of Section 4(h) of the Act.”
12. Further question which is also required to be
considered by this Court is whether long running Jamabandi can
be allowed to be cancelled by the Revenue Authority or not. The
law has been settled in that regard also by the Hon’ble Patna
High Court in the case of Ramayan Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of
Bihar & Ors. reported in (2013) 3 PLJR 533, wherein, it has
been held that long running Jamabandi cannot be cancelled, save
an except by filing a suit before the competent Court of Civil
Jurisdiction.
13. Further the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
State of Jharkhand and Ors. Vs. Chanchala Devi passed in
L.P.A. No.142 of 2010 along with L.P.A. No.307 of 2009,
has also been pleased to hold that if the State Government is
claiming ownership upon the property in question, which is in
7
possession of the tenant/raiyat and his/her predecessors-in-title,
civil suit is the only remedy available with the State Government.
14. Here also in the facts and circumstances of the case,
as would primafacie appear from the record that the settlement
was made in the year 1944 and Jamabandi running in the name
Sayyad Moinuddin Shah. Subsequently, the land was transferred
through way of sale deed and presently the jamabandi is in the
name of the petitioner and others. The steps have been taken for
initiation of a proceeding of Section 4(h) in the year 2023 and as
such it cannot be disputed that the proceeding under Section
4(h) started in the instant case is after about 78 years.
15. This Court in a writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1256
of 2019 (Antardhari Sao Vs. The State of Jharkhand &
Ors.), (decided on 19.02.2024), while dealing with the issue of
conferring power to initiate proceeding after 60 years, under
Section 4(h) of the Act of 1950, has held the same to be an
abuse of law. Para-21 and 22 of the order dated 19.02.2024
passed in W.P.(C) No.1256 of 2019 is quoted hereinbelow: –
“21. In this case, the proceeding under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 has
been initiated after 69 years from the date of promulgation of the Act.
This is a very long period which by any stretch of imagination, cannot be
said to be a reasonable period to initiate the proceedings under Section
4(h) of the Act, 1950. Further a suit for recovery of possession and decla-
ration of title will also be barred in view of the Limitation Act as 69 years
have lapsed. When a remedy is barred under the Limitation Act, the said
remedy cannot be availed by taking recourse to a Statute where limitation
has not been prescribed.
22. Thus even if the Additional Collector has power to issue any notice un-
der the Act, he does not have power to initiate a proceeding after more
than 60 years. Initiating the proceeding after 60 years in this case is ab-
solutely an abuse of law. Thus, the entire proceeding initiated by the im-
pugned notice under section 4(h) is set aside.”
16. Further, it has come on record that in Case No.
150/02-03 TR No. 25/04-05 (Ganpat Mahto vs the State of
Jharkhand) wherein an inquiry under section 4(h) the Bihar Land
Reforms Act, was earlier initiated against the land in question,
the then Deputy Commissioner passed an order that a
proceeding under Section 4(h) can be initiated only where the
transfer or settlement of the land was made on or after
01.01.1946 and it was ordered that the Jamabandi standing in
the name of Shri Ganpat Mahto in respect of Khata No. 383, Plot
No. 411, measuring 3.76 acres, was hereby re-stored.
8
Relevant portion of Order dated 17.03.2005 passed in
Case No. 150/02-3 TR No. 25/04-05 (Ganpat Mahto vs the State
of Jharkhand) extracted hereinbelow:
अंचल अ धकार , रातु ने इस संदभ म अपने आदे श म उ लेख कया है क खाता .
383 एलॉट नं 411 एकदा 3.76 एकड़ पर ी गणपत महतो एवं अ य का पूण तथा
शां तपूण क ा है। िबहार भू म सुधार अ ध नयम 1950 की धारा 43(h) की कारवाई
तभी संभव है जब भू म का ह ता तरण या बं दोब ी 01.01.1946 या उसके बाद क
गई है ।
ी फलगुनी नाथ क यप एवं अ य के वारा दायर कारण पूछा, अंचल अ धकार , रातु के
वारा अ भ ल खत आदे श फलक जो भू म सुधार उप समाहता सदर रांची एवं अपर
समाहता रांची के मा यम से उपा थापत कया गया है एवं अ भलेख म संल न सभी
कागजात के अवलोकन उपरांत तथा बहार भू म सध
ु ार अ ध नयम क धारा 1950 म
न हत ावधान गरः स यक वचारोपरा त खाता न०-383, लॉट सं या- 411 रकवा
3.76 एकड़ पर गणपत महतो के नाम से चल रह जमाबंदी को बहाल कया जाता है ।
English Translation for reference :
The Circle Officer, Ratu, in his order, has recorded that Khata
No. 383, Plot No. 411, area 3.76 acres, is under the complete
and peaceful possession of Shri Ganpat Mahto and others. Pro-
ceedings under Section 43(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act,
1950 can be initiated only where the transfer or settlement of
the land was made on or after 01.01.1946.
After considering the show-cause filed by Shri Falguni Nath
Kashyap and others, the order recorded by the Circle Officer,
Ratu, which was forwarded through the Land Reforms Deputy
Collector (Sadar), Ranchi, and the Additional Collector, Ranchi,
along with all the documents available on record, and upon due
consideration of the provisions contained in the Bihar Land Re-
forms Act, 1950, it is ordered that the Jamabandi standing in
the name of Shri Ganpat Mahto in respect of Khata No. 383, Plot
No. 411, measuring 3.76 acres, is hereby restored.
17. From the aforesaid, it is clear that a similar
proceeding under Section 4(h) was initiated and got concluded in
the year 2005, which became final, as no appeal was filed against
the findings/order. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the
state’s conduct of initiating a same proceeding in the year 2023
in respect of the same land is illegal and contrary to law.
18. Further, considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Patna High Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also the
Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court passed in L.P.A. No.786 of
2018, which has been declined to be interfered with by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s). 8108 of
2021 vide order dated 06.07.2021, this Court is not hesitant in
holding that the order dated 16.05.2023 passed in Sandigdh
Jamabandi Case No. DTCR 132/21-22 (Annexure-4 to the writ9
petition) passed by respondent No.4 – the Deputy Commissioner,
Ranchi for initiation of proceedings under Section 4(h) of the Act,
suffers from the jurisdictional error and as such, is nullity in the
eye of law.
19. Accordingly, the order dated 16.05.2023 passed in
Sandigdh Jamabandi Case No. DTCR 132/21-22 (Annexure-4 to
the writ petition) passed by respondent No.4 – the Deputy
Commissioner, Ranchi whereby proceeding under Section 4(h) is
initiated is quashed and set aside.
20. In consequence thereof, the order dated 06.06.2023
contain in Memo. No. 3029 (ii) RA dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-3
to the writ petition) passed by respondent No.4-the Deputy
Commissioner, Ranchi is also quashed and set aside.
21. However, the State is at liberty to file a suit before the
competent court of civil jurisdiction claiming title over the land
and for eviction of this petitioner.
22. Accordingly, the writ petition stands Allowed.
23. In view of the order passed in this writ petition, the
contempt is dropped.
24. Pending, interlocutory applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
21th July, 2026
Anu/SKC
AFR
Uploaded 24/07/2026
10
