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

20/21

the 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.

manoj/-

(Sourendra Pandey, J)

AFR/NAFR AFR

CAV DATE 08.05.2026

Uploading Date 21.05.2026

Transmission Date NA