Patna High Court – Orders
Sanjay Kumar Pandey @ Sanjay Pandey vs The State Of Bihar on 13 July, 2026
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4116 of 2026
======================================================
Sanjay Kumar Pandey @ Sanjay Pandey
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Indrajeet Bhushan, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Standing Counsel (18)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
5 13-07-2026
Heard Mr. Ranjit Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for
the petitioner and the State.
2. The present petition has been preferred for the
following relief/s:
“a. Quashing the order dated 22.01.2026,
passed in JBCA 226/2024-25, passed by Sri
Rajeshwari Pandey, the Learned ADM, Gopalganj
whereby and whereunder the learned court above
referred has cancelled the Jambandi No. 72 (details
of which has been stated in Paragraph No. 3 of the
present Writ Application), running in the name of
Manu Pandey @ Mannu Pandey (the grandfather of
the Petitioner).
b. And further for a direction to the
Respondent Authorities to not to take away the land
of the Petitioner, at the strength of the order
impugned dated 22.01.2026 or otherwise, on
amongst others, the following grounds: –
(i) For that the order impugned dated
22.01.2026 is without jurisdiction and has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.4116 of 2026(5) dt.13-07-2026
2/9passed by the learned ADM Gopalganj, arbitrarily.
The same is the abuse of the administrative / quasi –
judicial power held by the learned ADM,
Gopalganj.
(ii) For that the learned ADM Gopalganj
has exceeded it’s jurisdiction. vested in it under the
Bihar Land Mutation Act, 2011 which empowers it
to conduct a summary proceeding relating to
mutation correction and maintenance of revenue
records.
He is having no jurisdiction to enter into
the disputes relating to the Validity of the
Documents regarding the Right, Title and
Possession of the land; hold by the Petitioner.
(iii) For that by the order impugned dated
22.01.2026 Gopalganj the learned ADM ; has
declared the Instrument. (Patta) dated 21.11.1939″
null and void which is beyond the jurisdiction of the
learned ADM, Gopalganj.
(iv) For that, here it is worth pointing out
that the lands were settled in the year 1939, by Raj
Hathwa, in favour of the Grandfather of the
Petitioner.
The Raj Hathwa, in the year 1939, was a
Sovereign Estate and was having full authority to
settle the land and grant the Raiyati
Rights/Occupancy Rights, to the individuals.
(v) For that the settlement of land, by the
proprietor in favour of cultivating tenants was
governed by the proprietary rights recognised under
the Permanent Settlement Regulations of 1793 and
Patna High Court CWJC No.4116 of 2026(5) dt.13-07-2026
3/9
regulated by the provisions of the Bengal / Bihar
Tenancy Act, 1885
( vi) For that upon the coming into force
of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, only the
intermediary interest (held by the Zamindar) vested
in the State; under section 3 of the Bihar Land
Reforms Act.
The existing Raiyati Rights remained
protected and unaffected, and therefore the Bihar
Land Reforms Act was neither the source of the
creation of such tenancy rights nor did it is capable
of extinguish them.
(vii) For that upon vesting of the estate
under Section 3 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act,
1950, the intermediary interest of Raj Hathwa stood
vested in the State: however, in view of Section 4(a)
of the Act, which expressly excludes “the interests of
raiyats and under-raiyats” from vesting the pre-
existing Raiyati Rights remained unaffected and
continued under the “State as Landlord”;
accordingly, the same Jamabandi No. 72 (now as
computerized Jamabandi No. 197121800024576)
continued to be maintained in recognition of such
subsisting Raiyati Rights.
(viii) For that, the impugned order is
wholly unsustainable in law, inasmuch as it
proceeds on an erroneous assumption that Gair
Majarua Malik land could not have been validly
settled by the erstwhile proprietor, thereby indirectly
giving retrospective operation to the provisions of
the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4116 of 2026(5) dt.13-07-2026
4/9
It is well settled by several judgments of
the Hon’ble High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme
Court that Gair Majarua Malik land could validly
be settled by the erstwhile proprietor prior to
vesting; and such pre-abolition settlements cannot
be invalidated by applying the provisions of the
Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, retrospectively
Since the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950
does not operate retrospectively, the rights of the
proprietor to settle a land continued up to the date
of vesting, and it was only upon that, by such vesting
the State stepped into the shoes of the intermediary
and the proprietary rights stood extinguished.
Therefore, it was not open to the learned
ADM, Gopalganj to apply the provisions of the said
Act to a settlement, which admittedly took place in
the year 1939, long prior to the abolition of
zamindari and vesting of the estate.
(ix) For that, at the time of independence
and also at the time of vesting of the Zamindari the
grandfather of the Petitioner had already become a
Settled Raiyat and had acquired occupancy rights
under Sections 20 and 21 of the BiharTenancy Act,
1885, as recognized in the landmark judgment in
Most. Ugni.
(x) For that the Learned Court below has
failed to appreciate that in the year 1939, when the
land was settled and Jamabandi No. 72 was
subsequently created, Raj Hathwa was the recorded
proprietor of the estate under the Permanent
Settlement and was legally competent to settle the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4116 of 2026(5) dt.13-07-2026
5/9
land and create raiyati rights in favour of
cultivating tenants.
(xi) For that very initiation i.e.
recommendation For that the very initiation i.e. for
the Jamabandi Cancellation is also bad in law and
bad on the facts.
(xii) For that from the perusal of the Page
No. 66 of the Present Writ Application it would
appear that the proceeding for the Cancellation of
Jamabandi was recommended on 23.12.2024, on the
basis that the Plot No. 480 is related to a water
body and the same has been proposed for water
conservation – which appears to be factually
incorrect; on the perusal of the Khatiyan as well as
the present topography of the land.
(xiii) For that from the perusal of the
order impugned itself, it is apparent that the
Petitioner has explained all the facts and
backgrounds, in which the land was settled in the
name of the grandfather of the Petitioner. The facts
so stated were not denied by the State.
(xiv) For that it is an admitted and
undisputed position on record that after the
settlement of the land in the year 1939, Jamabandi
No. 72 was duly created by Raj Hathwa and the
same was subsequently carried forward and
continuously maintained by the State of Bihar in its
Register-II even after vesting under the Bihar Land
Reforms Act, 1950, and has been running
uninterruptedly for the last 86 years.
It is further evident that the State of Bihar,
Patna High Court CWJC No.4116 of 2026(5) dt.13-07-2026
6/9
through the Circle Office, Kateya, Gopalganj,
refixed the quantum of land revenue in respect of the
said Jamabandi vide Rent Fixation Case No.
75/1959-1960 thereby expressly recognizing the
subsistence and validity of the said Jamabandi.
These undisputed facts conclusively establish long-
standing continuous and recognized possession of
the Petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest, which could
not have been unsettled or cancelled in a summary
proceeding under the Bihar Land Mutation Act,
2011.
( XV) For that the actuality of the matter
is that the order impugned dated 22.01.2026 has
been passed against the Petitioner arbitrarily, just
with a view to take away the valuable land of the
Petitioner without any selenium.
(xvi) For that, from the perusal of the
running of the proceedings, it is emptily manifested
that the order impugned has been passed in highly
arbitrary manner.
The arguments in this case were
concluded on 29.07.2025 and the order was
reserved.
Thereafter the case status started showing
“disposed of” on 29.07.2025.
After some time the status report started
showing “disposed of” on 06.10.2025.
Lastly the order was passed on
22.01.2026.
(xvii) For that the order impugned dated
22.01.2026 is also under the teeth of the various
Patna High Court CWJC No.4116 of 2026(5) dt.13-07-2026
7/9
judgments of this Hon’ble High Court which are
available at Page No. 97 10 128 of the present Writ
Application.
The Judgements concerned were brought
in the notice of the court of the learned ADM,
Gopalganj also by way of filing a list of documents
dated 29.07.2025 (Annexure P/10, Page No. 86)
through which the other relevant documents were
also filed.
(xviii) For that from the perusal of the
grounds on which the Jamabandi Cancellation
Proceeding was initiated vis-Ã -vis the grounds on
which the Jamabandi has been cancelled vis-Ã -vis
the Judgments of this Hon’ble High Court
supporting the case of the Petitioner vis-a-vis the
manner in which the proceedings have been
conducted by the learned ADM, Gopalganj; it is out
and out clear that the order impugned is completely
an arbitrary, malafide and illegal order.
(xix) For that the impugned action of the
Respondent Authorities is arbitrary, unreasonable
and without jurisdiction, thereby violative of Article
14 of the Constitution of India. Further, the attempt
to deprive the Petitioner of his land without
authority of law and without recourse to a
competent civil forum is in clear contravention of
Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
(xx) For that due to the passing of an
arbitrary order dated 22.01.2026 the Petitioner has
suffered an irreparable injury.
( xxi) For that due to the illegal and
Patna High Court CWJC No.4116 of 2026(5) dt.13-07-2026
8/9
arbitrary action of the Respondent Authorities, the
Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner, as enshrined
in the Constitution of India, has been violated.
3. The details of the land stand recorded in paragraph 3
of the petition which read as under:
“District- Gopalganj;
Circle – Kateya (up to – 31.12.1996)
Panchdeori (01.01.1997 to till day)
Gram Panchayat – Koisa Khurd;
Village – Bhatwa Khurd;
Thana No. – 538;
Khata No. 62 (Gairmajarua Malik);
Plot No. – 480;
Having total area -7 Acre 79 Decimal 10 Bigha,
9 Katha, 9 Dhur.”
4. This followed the creation of revenue records in
favour of the ancestor vide no. 72 in the year 1940-41. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that he shall be bringing on
record the original copy of the said Jamabandi.
5. The further submission is that the first mutation
receipt was issued on 04.03.1945 and it continued up to the year
2011-12 and the update mutation receipts shall also be brought on
record by way of supplementary affidavit.
Patna High Court CWJC No.4116 of 2026(5) dt.13-07-2026
9/9
6. The submission is that long-standing Jamabandi
stands cancelled on 22.01.2026 by the Additional Collector,
Gopalganj on the recommendation made by the Circle Officer,
Panchdeori and while cancelling the same, not only the
documents on record were ignored, even the judgments of
Hon’ble the Supreme Court and the High Court which was part of
the petition/reply stands ignored which is reflected from the order
itself.
7. A counter affidavit on behalf of respondents nos. 3 to
7 has come and a reply has also been filed.
8. Let the petitioner come up with all the relevant
documents, as recorded above, by way of supplementary affidavit
and shall also prepare a brief synopsis of the case.
9. List this case on 03.08.2026.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Sanny/-
U
