Patna High Court
Bipin Bihari Verma vs The State Of Bihar, Through The Chief … on 21 May, 2026
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
20/21the 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
