Patna High Court
Vanee Jha vs The State Of Bihar on 7 July, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19132 of 2021
======================================================
1. Vanee Jha, Wife of Pramod Kumar Jha Resident of Village- Singhwara, P.S.-
Singhwara, District- Darbhanga.
2. Amit Kumar, S/o Late Surendra Kant Jha Resident of Village- Laxmipur
Kaithinia, P.S.- Railway Station- Jhanjharpur, Dist- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Land and Revenue
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Land and Revenue Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Collector, Darbhanga.
4. The Additional Collector, Darbhanga.
5. The Circle Officer, Bahadurpur Anchal, District- Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18114 of 2021
======================================================
Bibhuti Kumar, Das Son of Late Ramakant Das, Resident of Village -
Bahadurpur, Police Station- Bahadurpur, District- Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Land and Revenue
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Land and Revenue Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Collecctor, Darbhanga.
4. The Additional Collector, Darbhanga.
5. The Circle Officer, Bahadurpur Anchal, District - Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19041 of 2021
======================================================
Nirmala Devi, Wife Late Daya Krishna Jha Resident of Village - Mahthour
Goth, P.s. - Andhramath, District- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Land and Revenue
Patna High Court CWJC No.19132 of 2021 dt.07-07-2026
2/19
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Land and Revenue Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Collector, Darbhanga.
4. The Additional Collector, Darbhanga.
5. The Circle Officer, Bahadurpur Anchal, District- Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19132 of 2021)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binay Kant Mani Tripathi, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, SC-25
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18114 of 2021)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binay Kant Mani Tripathi, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, SC-25
(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19041 of 2021)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binay Kant Mani Tripathi, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, SC-25
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-07-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the Respondent
no. 4 by his letter no. 62 dated 04-02-2021 called for a report
from respondent no.5 about new R.S Khata no. 347, Plot no-34,
which was carved out from part of lands of old C.S Khata No.
263/363 Plot no. 109, but the Circle Officer (respondent no.5)
submitted a report which was not in the prescribed form. The
further case of the petitioner is that the mother of the petitioner
purchased land measuring 2 katha 15 Dhur appertaining to old
Khata no. 369 Plot no. 106 (new Khata no. 51, Plot no.35) and
Patna High Court CWJC No.19132 of 2021 dt.07-07-2026
3/19
also purchased 1 Katha 10 dhurs of land appertaining to old
Khata no. 263/363 Plot no 109, New Khata No. 217, Plot No.
36 and 37 total area 4 Katha 5 dhur from Bibhuti Kumar Das
and Mundra Kala Devi through a registered sale deed no.
15744 dated 20-11-2006 and the aforesaid land was mutated in
the name of the mother of Petitioner. It is further the case of the
petitioner that the petitioner purchased the land from Bibhuti
Kumar Das, who is grandson of Baijnath Lal Das and full
brother of Jagarnath Lal Das in whose name the Jamabandi was
running. The Respondent no.4 initiated Jamabandi Cancellation
case no. 63 of 2020-21 in the name of deceased Jagarnath lal
Das and respondent no.4 went on to cancel the Jamabandi
through the Jamabandi cancellation Case No. 63/2020-21. It is
further contended by the petitioner that the respondent no.4
cancelled the Jamabandi running in the name of late Jagarnath
Lal Das, Jamabandi no- 05/182 vide order dated 30-07-2021,
and based on the order passed aforesaid the Respondent no.5 is
going to implement the direction made in the order passed on
30-07-2021
by cancelling the jamabandi no- 2231 which is
running in the name of the petitioner’s Mother.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the Additional Collector, Dharamanga (Respondent No. 4),
Patna High Court CWJC No.19132 of 2021 dt.07-07-2026
4/19
illegally initiated Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 63 of
2020-21 against a dead person, Jagarnath Lal Das, and, by
order dated 03.07.2021, erroneously cancelled Jamabandi No.
5/182. It is submitted that the said order was passed without
jurisdiction and is, therefore, a nullity in the eyes of law. It has
next been submitted that it is a well-settled principle of law that
a Jamabandi standing in the name of a raiyat for more than 90
years cannot be cancelled by the revenue authorities. Such a
Jamabandi can be annulled only by a competent civil court in
duly instituted civil proceedings by way of a title suit.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Respondent No. 4 has erroneously recorded a finding that,
upon perusal of the map, Plot No. 109 appears to be a pokhar.
It is submitted that the said finding is factually incorrect and
contrary to the record, as a plain reading of the map clearly
demonstrates that Plot No. 109 is not recorded or depicted as a
pokhar. Consequently, the impugned finding is based on a
complete misreading of the map and is liable to be set aside. It
has next been submitted that the petitioner’s mother, namely
Manorama Devi, died on 15.03.2021 during the pendency of
Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 64 of 2020-21. Despite her
demise, the impugned order dated 03.07.2021 was passed
Patna High Court CWJC No.19132 of 2021 dt.07-07-2026
5/19
against her. It is submitted that an order passed against a dead
person is wholly without jurisdiction and is a nullity in the eyes
of law. It has further been submitted that Manorama Devi died
intestate, leaving behind one daughter, namely Vani Jha
(petitioner no. 1) and one son, namely Ajit Kumar (Petitioner
No. 2), as her legal heirs. However, no steps were taken by the
respondent authorities to substitute the legal heirs, nor was any
notice issued to Petitioner No. 2 before passing the impugned
order. Consequently, the impugned order was passed behind the
back of Petitioner No. 2, in gross violation of the principles of
natural justice, and is therefore liable to be set aside.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent submits
that the Circle Officer, Bahadurpur, forwarded a proposal under
Section 9 of the Bihar Mutation Act, 2011, vide Letter No. 269
dated 09.02.2021, stating therein that Jamabandi No at part no
14, standing in the name of the petitioner, had been created in
respect of public land and had been carved out from the
original Jamabandi No. 5/182. It has further been submitted
that the original Jamabandi had been created without any order
passed by the competent authority. On the aforesaid basis, the
Circle Officer recommended cancellation of the said
Jamabandi.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19132 of 2021 dt.07-07-2026
6/19
6. The learned counsel for the respondent submits
that, on the basis of the proposal forwarded by the Circle
Officer, Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 64 of 2020-21 was
instituted before the Court of the Additional Collector,
Darbhanga, in respect of the petitioner’s Jamabandi. Pursuant
thereto, notices were duly issued to the petitioner, who
appeared before the authority and actively participated in the
proceedings.
7. It has next been submitted that, after hearing the
learned Assistant Government Pleader and upon perusal of the
records, the Additional Collector, Darbhanga, by order dated
01.08.2021, stayed the operation of Jamabandi No. 2231
pertaining to Mauza Bahadurpur, Thana No. 236, Anchal
Bahadurpur, District Darbhanga.
8. It has further been submitted that Revisional
Survey Plot Nos. 35 and 37 stands recorded in the name of
Radhakant Das and that the nature of the land has been
described as Dhanhar-I, having been carved out of Cadastral
Survey (C.S.) Plot No. 109. It was observed that, during the
settlement operation, government land was erroneously
recorded in the name of a raiyat. It was further observed that,
upon perusal of the C.S. map, C.S. Plot No. 109 was recorded
Patna High Court CWJC No.19132 of 2021 dt.07-07-2026
7/19
as a tank (pokhar) in the C.S. Khatian. The authority further
held that Jamabandi No. 5/182 had been created without any
order passed by the competent authority and that the first rent
receipt was issued in Fasli Year 1292, without mentioning any
mutation case number. Accordingly, it was concluded that,
since the very creation of Jamabandi No. 5/182 was doubtful
and unsupported by any order of the competent authority, the
subsequent Jamabandis created on its basis were also liable to
be cancelled.
Re. C.W.J.C. No: 18114 of 2021
9. The case of the petitioner is that the Additional
Collector, Darbhanga (respondent No. 4) in Jamabandi
Cancellation Case No. 63 of 2021, passed an order cancelling
the Jamabandi standing in the name of late Jagarnath Lal Das,
who was the petitioner’s cousin grandfather. It is further the
case of the petitioner that the said order has been passed
illegally, arbitrarily, and without jurisdiction. The contention on
behalf of the petitioner is that respondent No. 4, while initiating
the Revisional Survey operations during the years 1970-1971,
illegally carved out new plots and khatas corresponding to the
old Khata No. 263/363 and Plot No. 109 and recorded the same
in the name of the State of Bihar. It is further the case of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19132 of 2021 dt.07-07-2026
8/19
petitioner that the said Revisional Survey record has never
attained finality and that the right, title and possession over the
land in question have remained in dispute.
10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Submits that
respondent No. 4 has committed a manifest error of law in
holding that merely because the Revisional Survey map depicts
the disputed land as a pokhar, the same belongs to the State of
Bihar. The petitioner submits that the nature of the land has
been recorded as Dhanhar in the Cadastral Survey Khatian,
and, therefore, respondent No. 4 could not have cancelled the
Jamabandi solely on the basis of the depiction in the survey
map.
11. It has next been submitted that the report
submitted by the Circle Officer, pursuant to the communication
issued by respondent No. 4, unequivocally records the name of
late Jagarnath Lal Das as the raiyat and owner of the land in
question. However, respondent No. 4, without considering the
said report and without recording any finding regarding
violation of any statutory provision, rule, executive instruction
or Government circular, proceeded to cancel the Jamabandi
behind the back of the petitioner and without affording an
opportunity of hearing.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19132 of 2021 dt.07-07-2026
9/19
12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
the impugned order dated 30.12.2021 passed by the Additional
Collector, Darbhanga, in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 63
of 2020-2021, purportedly under Section 9 of the Bihar Land
Mutation Act, 2011, is wholly without jurisdiction and contrary
to law, having been passed without complying with the
mandatory requirements of Section 9 of the Act read with Rule
13(3) of the Rules framed thereunder. Respondent No. 4 neither
recorded the requisite satisfaction for initiating an inquiry into
the Jamabandi standing in the name of the petitioner’s
predecessor-in-interest nor followed the procedure prescribed
under the Act and the Rules, thereby rendering the impugned
order illegal and unsustainable. It has been contended that it is
a settled principle of law that any judicial or quasi-judicial
order passed against a deceased person is a nullity in the eyes
of law. In the present case, the original khatiyani raiyat, namely
late Jagarnath Lal Das, in whose favour Jamabandi No. 5/182
had been created in the year 1927, had expired in the year
1938. Despite having knowledge, or being deemed to have
knowledge, of the said fact, respondent No. 4 initiated the
Jamabandi cancellation proceeding against the deceased raiyat
and passed the impugned order dated 30.12.2021 without
Patna High Court CWJC No.19132 of 2021 dt.07-07-2026
10/19
issuing notice to, or affording an opportunity of hearing to his
surviving legal heirs and representatives, including the
petitioner, who claims through the said late Jagarnath Lal Das.
The entire proceeding is, therefore, vitiated on account of gross
violation of the principles of natural justice and is liable to be
quashed.
13. Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that
as per the Revisional Survey Khatian, R.S. Plot No. 34 stands
recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar Sarkar and the nature of
the land has been recorded as a tank (Pokhar). It has further
been submitted that the Circle Officer, Bahadurpur, vide Letter
No. 269 dated 09.02.2021, forwarded a proposal under Section
9 of the Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011, stating therein that
Jamabandi No. 5/182 had been created in respect of public land
without any order passed by the competent authority and,
accordingly, recommended cancellation of the said Jamabandi.
It has next been submitted that, on the basis of the report
submitted by the Circle Officer, Jamabandi Cancellation Case
No. 63 of 2020-2021 was instituted before the Court of the
Additional Collector, Darbhanga. The Respondent no.4 issued
notice in the name of Jagarnath Lal Das. However, as no one
appeared on his behalf, the proceeding was conducted ex parte.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19132 of 2021 dt.07-07-2026
11/19
14. It has lastly been submitted that the Additional
Collector, Darbhanga, called for reports from the District
Record Room as well as the Survey Settlement Officer,
Darbhanga. Thereafter, upon hearing the learned Assistant
Government Pleader and on consideration of the materials
available on record, the Additional Collector, Darbhanga,
passed the order cancelling Jamabandi No. 5/182, holding that
the land in question was recorded in the name of Anabad Bihar
Sarkar and that its nature was that of a tank (Pokhar).
Re. C.W.J.C. No: 19041 of 2021
15. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband,
Late Daya Krishna Jha, purchased a total area of 1 Katha 13
Dhurs of land appertaining to Old Khata No. 369, Plot No. 106
(corresponding to New Khata No. 51, Plot No. 38) from Avadh
Bihari Lal Das through a registered sale deed executed in the
name of Vinay Kumar Das. It is the further case of the
petitioner that, in the year 1952, her husband also purchased 14
Dhurs of land appertaining to Old Khata Nos. 263 and 363,
Plot No. 109 (corresponding to New Khata No. 218, Plot No.
40) from Vinay Kumar Das. Thus, Late Daya Krishna Jha
acquired a total area of 2 Kathas 7 Dhurs of land situated at
Village Bhadurpur, P.S. Bhadurpur, District Darbhanga.It is
Patna High Court CWJC No.19132 of 2021 dt.07-07-2026
12/19
further stated that the sale deed was duly registered on
13.06.2006. After the demise of her husband, the aforesaid
lands were mutated in the name of the petitioner in Jamabandi
No. 8 /2005 in respect of Plot No. 106 and Jamabandi no. 5/182
in respect of Plot No. 109 during the year 2016-17.
Consequently, Jamabandi No. 222-9 was created in the name of
the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that
Jamabandi No. 2229 was created in the name of the petitioner
on the basis of Jamabandi No. 8/125 and Jamabandi no. 5/182.
16. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
neither of the aforesaid parent Jamabandis were recorded as
Anabad Bihar Sarkar or Pokhar (pond). It has further been
submitted that, surprisingly, Jamabandi No. 8/125 was never
made the subject matter of the jamabandi cancellation
proceeding initiated before Respondent No. 4. Nevertheless,
Respondent No. 4 proceeded to cancel Jamabandi No. 2229,
which had been created in the name of the petitioner on the
strength of the aforesaid parent Jamabandis.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioners then submits
that the cancellation of the Jamabandi No. 5/182 was without
jurisdiction and is a nullity in the eyes of law as it is well
settled that the Jamabandi, which is running in the name of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19132 of 2021 dt.07-07-2026
13/19
respondent for more than 94 years cannot be cancelled by the
revenue authorities in a summary proceeding and the same can
be done only by a competent court of civil jurisdiction. It has
been submitted that contrary to the recordings made in the
khatiyan and relying merely on the map, the Plot No. 109 was
stated to be a Pokhar (Pond).
18. Learned counsel for the petitioners further points
out that the direction given in the impugned order dated
01.08.2021, to the Assistant Survey Settlement Officer,
Darbhanga to file a case against the order passed earlier by his
predecessor on 08.04.2008 in Case No. 19 of 2004 by which
wrong entry of plot no. 34 of Khata No. 347 as modified as
Dhanhar in place of Pokhar is wrong. It has been submitted that
the aforesaid Plot No. 40 of Khata No. 218 (new) was already
recorded in C.S and R.S khatiyan ‘Dhanhar’ and the same was
not the subject matter of the aforesaid Case No. 19 of 2004. It
has been submitted that the impugned orders sufferes from an
apparent illegality on account of the fact that the impugned
orders passed in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 64/2020-21
and 63 of 2020-21 have been passed against dead persons
which is a nullity in the eyes of law and cannot be given effect
to. It has thus been submitted that the impugned orders are fit
Patna High Court CWJC No.19132 of 2021 dt.07-07-2026
14/19
to be set aside.
19. The contention of the State is that the petitioners
have alternative remedy available as the orders passed by the
authorities are appealable and the appeal lies before the
Collector, District. It has been submitted that the jamabandi no.
05/182 and the consequential jamabandi in favour of the other
petitioners have been cancelled on account of the fact that the
C.S Plot No. 109 was found to be in the nature of pond and
therfore any subsequent jamabandi i.e. 2229, 2231 itself
becomes illegal. It has been contended that the grounds for
setting aside the order of cancellation has no locus to stand and
it is based on cogent reasoing as it is a well settled law that the
land in question as per the C.S map was a pond and therfore a
water body could not have been alineated and be transferred in
name of others and no jamabandi could have been created in
favour of petitioners and therefore there is no illegality in the
orders impugned.
20. Considering the aforesaid submissions forwarded
on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
the learned AC to SC-25 and also upon perusal of the orders
impugned and the documents relied upon by the petitioners,
this Court has observed that the jamabandi no. 05/182 was
Patna High Court CWJC No.19132 of 2021 dt.07-07-2026
15/19
created in favour of Jagarnath Lal Das, since deceased in
whose favour the said jamabandi was created in the year 1927
and he died in the year 1938. This Court also finds that the
khatiyan, which has been brought on record describes the land
in question as Dhanhar which finds substantiated by the report
by the Revenue Karamchari given to the Circle Officer,
Bahadupur wherein he has stated the land under Khata No.
363, Khesra No. 109 to be ‘Dhanhar’ and in the said report, the
two khesra which has been carved out from the same were
reported to be in the nature of pond.
21. From the averments made in the counter affidavit
as well as the documents brought on record by the State, this
Court finds very peculiar that instead of relying upon the
entries made in the khatiyan, the authorities have referred to the
map prepared wherein the land in question was stated to be a
pond. It is also undisputed that the jamabandi no. 05/182 was
created way back and was standing since long i.e. for more
than 90 years.
22. This Court on various occasions have held that a
longstanding jamabandi cannot be cancelled in a summary
proceeding and the only relief the State has is to move before a
competent court of civil jurisdiction for annulling the same.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19132 of 2021 dt.07-07-2026
16/19
23. At this juncture, this Court is of the view that
the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of “Maya Devi
& Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2014) 3
PLJR, 584 and also in the case of State of Bihar through
Collector, Siwan vs. Harendra Nath Tiwary reported in 2015
(1) PLJR 606, this Court has way back decided that even if the
title of the land owner is disputed by the State, the only remedy
the State has is to file civil case and not to cancel jamabandi in
a summary proceeding that too without giving notice.
24. One paragraph of the aforesaid judgment
passed in the case of Maya Devi (Supra) is to be taken note
of :-
“The result of these three
progressive stages is that if the State wants
the petitioners’ lands or the lands on which
the petitioners have been residing for last
50 years, they must pay due compensation
and take action in accordance with the
provisions of the new Land Acquisition Act.
If they intend to cancel the Jamabandi then
it is for them to move the Civil Court for a
declaration that the alleged settlement
and/or Jamabandi is illegal and cannot be
accepted and let the title of the State be so
declared but till such time the dispute is
Patna High Court CWJC No.19132 of 2021 dt.07-07-2026
17/19
resolved, the petitioners cannot be evicted
by the State in any manner nor can just
compensation for acquisition be denied.”
25. Also in the case of Nathuni Singh @ Nathuni
Singh Yadav v. The State of Bihar in C.W.J.C. No. 16985 of
2018, a co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court has held as
under:-
“This Court in C.W.J.C. No.
16985 of 2018 (Nathuni Singh @ Nathuni
Singh Yadav v. The State of Bihar) has held
that the power of the State for cancellation
of Jamabandi cannot be exercised in casual
manner. The long standing Jamabandi in
the name of a person cannot be cancelled by
the State in a casual manner or in a
summary proceeding. The long standing
Jamabandi can only be cancelled after the
State files a Title Suit and is successful in
the said Title Suit. In the present case, no
proceeding has been initiated by the State
authorities for cancellation of Jamabandi or
no Title Suit has been filed for cancellation
of the Jamabandi.”
26. In view of such proposition of law and especially
taking into account the fact that the land in question was
entered as ‘Dhanhar’ in the C.S. Khatiyan, this Court has no
Patna High Court CWJC No.19132 of 2021 dt.07-07-2026
18/19
hesitation in setting aside the impugned orders on this account
alone. To add to the aforesaid, the authorities have gone on to
initiate proceedings of cancellation of jamabandi, which stood
in the name of deceased persons and the impugned orders have
been passed thereafter against deceased persons, which is a
nullity in the eyes of law.
27. In the result, this writ petitions are allowed, the
impugned orders dated 30.07.2021 passed by Additional
Collector, Darbhanga in Case No. 64 of 2020-21 (Annexure-6)
in CWJC No. 19132 of 2021, impugned order dated 30.07.2021
passed by Additional Collector, Darbhanga in Jamabandi
Cancellation Case No. 63 of 2020-21 (Annexure-6) in CWJC
No. 18114 of 2021 and impugned order dated 01.08.2021
passed by Additional Collector, Darbhanga in Case No. 72 of
2020-21 (Annexure-6) in CWJC No. 19041 of 2021 are set
aside.
28. The State, if aggrieved by the claims of the
petitioners over the land in question, shall be at liberty to
institute a properly constituted title suit before the civil court of
competent jurisdiction for adjudication of its right, title and
interest over the said land. It is made clear that any such suit, if
instituted, shall be decided on its own merits, in accordance
Patna High Court CWJC No.19132 of 2021 dt.07-07-2026
19/19
with law and without being prejudiced by any observation
made in the present judgment.
29. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed of.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/aditya
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 13.07.2026.
Transmission Date
