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. manoj/aditya (Sourendra Pandey, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 13.07.2026. Transmission Date