IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1241 of 2024 ====================================================== Pravir Krishna S/o Late Krishna Kishore Sinha, Resident of House No. N 28, Chitragupt Nagar, P.O. Chitragupt Nagar, P.S. Patrakar Nagar, District Patna 800020. Presently Residing at 1201, Tower 1, The Close North, Nirvana Country, Sector -50, Gurgaon, Haryana 122 018. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat Building, Patna. 2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat Building, Patna. 3. The Collector, Saran, Chhapra. 4. The Additional Collector, Saran. Chhapra. 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Marhaura, Saran, Chhapra. 6. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Marhaura, Saran, Chhapra. 7. The Circle Officer, Marhaura, Saran, Chhapra. 8. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 9. The Superintendent of Police, Saran, Chhapra. 10. The SHO, Masrakh Police Station, Chhapra. 11. Bachcha Lal Sah Son of Basudeo Sah Resident of Village-Dumarsan, P.S. Masrakh, District-Saran. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sarvendra Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Jai Vardhan Narayan, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. G.P.Ojha, Government Advocate 7 For the Respondent No.11 Mr. Jeetendra Narayan, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 6 27-01-2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned G.A.-7 Mr. G.P. Ojha and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent. 2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that certain relevant facts are necessary to be Patna High Court CWJC No.1241 of 2024(6) dt.27-01-2025 2/16 recorded, as they have bearing on the adjudication of the present case. The learned counsel submits that the land appertaining to Khata No. 122, Plot No. 491, area 2 bighas 19 kathas 4 dhurs at Mauza-Dumarsan, District- Saran in the khatiyan is recorded in the name Bijendra Bahadur Sinha, the grandfather of the petitioner, who was the landlord of the area. It is further submitted that the land in R.S. Khatiyan (revisional survey khatiya)(Annexure-1) was recorded as Gairmajarua Malikan land and Jarpesgidar, the land was in exclusive possession of Bijendra Bahadur Sinha, on which, agricultural and horticultural works were being done and a pond was constructed over the land for the purposes of fisheries and irrigating the land and there is a temple constructed on the land by the ancestors of the petitioner but then petitioner is not able to recollect as to when the temple was built as it is a very old structure. It is submitted that after vesting of zamindari, Jamabandi No.232 with regard to the land was created in the name of Bijendra Bahadur Sinha (hereinafter referred as B.B. Sinha). It is next submitted that after the death of B.B. Sinha, his sons namely, Rajendra Kishore Sihnha, Girish Kishore Sinha , Krishna Kishore Sinha, Shrish Kishore Sinha, and Bindu ji came in actual physical possession of the land and thereafter Jamabandi No.1362 was Patna High Court CWJC No.1241 of 2024(6) dt.27-01-2025 3/16 opened in the name of Krishna Kishore Sinha, the son of B.B. Sinha and father of the present petitioner, based on Bakhudaha Bantwara and thereafter the rent of the land is being paid. It is submitted that the sons of late B.B.Sinha sold some plots of the land by executing registered sale deed in favour of purchaser and jamabandi in the name of purchasers were also created. It is next submitted that since the private respondent was disputing regarding the land, hence petitioner filed Measurement Case No.09 of 2018-19 before the Circle Officer, Mashrakh and the land was measured by the Amin, in presence of respondent no.11 and Nagendra Singh, ex-Mukhiya of the panchayat and even villagers were present and the land in dispute was demarcated as would manifest from the order sheet of Mashrakh Anchal Measurement Case No.09 of 2018-19 (Annexure-2). The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the petitioner accordingly was fencing the land in dispute when Circle Officer, Masrakh and the SHO of the Masrakh Police Station (Respondent No. 2) stopped the work in collusion with respondent no.11. The respondent no.11 is Mukhiya of Dumarsan Panchayat and is a land grabber. It is further submitted that an application dated 11.01.2024 (Annexure-4) was submitted before the S.H.O., Mashrakh P.S. Patna High Court CWJC No.1241 of 2024(6) dt.27-01-2025 4/16 bringing to his notice that the land in dispute is his raiyati land and how attempts are being made to create nuisance by obstructing the fencing work which was being done to protect the temple built by his ancestors over the land in dispute. 3. It is submitted that the Circle Officer in the meantime stopped the fencing work without any order from any Court and directed to cover and fill the gaps that have been done for making the piling of construction work. It is submitted that respondent no.11 is in connivance with the Circle Officer and accordingly, filed a complaint before the Public Grievance Redressal Officer, Marhowra, based on which, the Circle Officer initiated Anchal Record Case No. 01/2020-21 and a report was called from Halka Karmchari and based on the report of Halka Karmchari, the Circle Officer recommended through the D.C.L.R. Marhowra for cancelling all jamabandis of land pertaining to Khata No.122 at Mauza- Dumarsan standing in the name of various purchasers including Jamabadi No. 1362. 4. 4. The learned counsel submits that it would not be out of place to submit here that the respondent no.11 had tried to grab the land in dispute on the pretext of using the fund allocated for development work of the Gram Panchayat for which Mashrakh P.S. Case No. 242/2016 (Annexure-5) was Patna High Court CWJC No.1241 of 2024(6) dt.27-01-2025 5/16 instituted, in which the respondent no.11 was taken into judicial custody. It is submitted that based on recommendation (Annexure-6) of the Circle officer, Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.166/2022-23 was instituted against the petitioner and in pursuance of the notice, petitioner and other purchasers appeared. The learned counsel next submits that Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.166/2022-23 was instituted against the petitioner and 19 other purchasers of the land pertaining to Khata No.122 from the sons of B.B. Sinha. It is further submitted that during pendency of the writ application Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.166/2022-23 was allowed and Jamabandi No.1362 standing in the name of the father of the petitioner was cancelled, accordingly, I.A. No.1/2024 has been filed challenging the order dated 03.02.2024 passed by the Additional Collector, Saran, Chapra in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.166/2022-23 whereby Jamabandi No.1362 running in the name of late father of the petitioner namely Krishna Kishore Sinha appertaining to Anchal Mashrakh Mauza-Dumarsan, Thana No.5, Khata No.122 has been cancelled. The I.A. No.1/2024 is allowed for consideration. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the prices of land in Bihar has sky Patna High Court CWJC No.1241 of 2024(6) dt.27-01-2025 6/16 rocketed, as such, the land grabbers in connivance with the authorities are bent upon grabbing the land of such persons who do not reside in the village. It is next submitted that petitioner is an I.A.S. officer of 1987 batch and has retired on 31.12.2021 and is before this court seeking justice from the arbitrary action of the Circle Officer and the Additional Collector. It is further submitted that this Court in plethora of judgment have clearly held that long standing jamabandi cannot be cancelled in a summary proceeding but then the authorities literally mocks at the orders of this Court, as such, they never take the orders of this Court seriously and passes order at their whims without realizing that how a citizen has to suffer. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner next submits that from perusal of Khatiyan it would manifest that the land in dispute in the present case stands recorded in the name of B.B. Sinha and the petitioner is grand son of B.B. Sinha. Further, jamabandi No.232 with respect to the land in dispute was recorded in the name of B.B. Sinha and in the year 1997, Jamabandi No.1362 came to be created in the name of Krishna Kishore Sinha, the father of the petitioner. It is next submitted that Jamabandi No. 232 in the name of B.B. Sinha was created at the time of vesting of zamindari, as such, Patna High Court CWJC No.1241 of 2024(6) dt.27-01-2025 7/16 the Jamabandi No.232 is an old jamabandi of nearly more than 70 years and Jamabandi no. 1362 created in the name of Krishna Kishore Sinha is an off shoot of Jamabandi No.232, as such, the Additional Collector while cancelling the Jamabandi No.1362 has indirectly questioned Jamabandi No.232. 7. The learned counsel next submitted that Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.166/2022-23 was instituted, based on the recommendation of the Circle Officer sent to the D.C.L.R. in the Court of Additional Collector. It is submitted that the Additional Collector, after hearing the parties recorded the submissions made on behalf of the C.O., Private respondent, the petitioner along with other purchasers of the land from the family of the petitioner, whose jamabandi have also been cancelled. 8. It is submitted that before the Additional Collector, the Circle Officer submitted that land pertaining to Khata No.122, Khesra No.491, Area 2 Bighas 19 Kathas 4 dhurs at Mauza-Dumarsan, Anchal-Mashrakh is around the government pond and is Gairmajarua Bhind land, since Jamabandi No.1362 was created in the name of Krisha Kishore Sinha, as such the government pond was encroached and thus the villagers were not allowed to use the government pond, hence the private respondent (Bachchalal Sah) filed a complaint before the Sub Patna High Court CWJC No.1241 of 2024(6) dt.27-01-2025 8/16 Divisional Public Grievance Redressal Officer, Marhowra on 20.07.2020 with a prayer to get Jamabandi No.1362 cancelled for the purposes of freeing the land from encroachment. In pursuance of the aforesaid complaint, an enquiry report was called from the revenue karmchari and based on the report, a recommendation was sent through the D.C.L.R. for getting the Jamabandi No.1362 cancelled in the Court of ADM apart from other jamabandis. The Circle Officer further submitted that on perusal of Jamabandi Register-II, it manifest that Jamabandi No.1362 was created since the page relating to old jamabandi was torn and also that Jamabandi No.1362 was created based on the rent receipt issued with regard to Jamabandi No.232, which does not appear to be correct, further during inquiry it was found that plot no.491 since before was being used as a passage (Rasta), which recently has been blocked by the petitioner and his brothers. The government Advocate before the ADM submitted that the land pertaining to Khata No.122 in revenue survey khatiyan is recorded as Gairmajarua Malikan and Jarpesgidar. There is no document on record to establish that the Tauzi of the concerned land was freed from the land owners and the erstwhile owner became absolute owner of the land, further one copy of return legally remains with the erstwhile owner but Patna High Court CWJC No.1241 of 2024(6) dt.27-01-2025 9/16 still the legal heirs of the owners have not submitted a copy of the return in the case, nor the reply filed by the opposite party (petitioner herein) clarifies as to when the land owner had settled the land, as such, the contention of the opposite party regarding settlement cannot be relied upon, but still the jamabandis of purchasers of land from the petitioner’s family was created in the year 1991-92 to 2014-15, though one jamabandi was created in the year 1961-62, further, in view of letter no.925 (6) dated 11.11.2014, issued by the Revenue and Land Reforms Department, such lands cannot be treated as raiyati land, further the patta are anti dated and forged hence such patta cannot be relied for title and thus the government is not requiured for getting such patta set aside, hence the jamabandis are liable to be cancelled. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein also filed his reply, rebutting the contention of the Circle Officer and the government pleader, as recorded, hereinabove. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a retired I.A.S. officer of 1987 batch and it does not appear probable that being an I.A.S. officer, the petitioner had encroached the government land. It is also submitted that the authorities do not dispute about creation Patna High Court CWJC No.1241 of 2024(6) dt.27-01-2025 10/16 of Jamabandi No.232, which was created in the name of B.B. Sinha, the father of Krishna Kishore Sinha, who was father of the present petitioner but then are disputing the Jamabandi No.1362. It is submitted by disputing jamabandi No.1362 in the name of Krishna Kishore Sinha the Additional Collector indirectly questioned the jamabandi No.232 created in the name of B.B.Sinha. It is also submitted that even the revisional survey Khatiyan (Annexure-1) records the name of the grand father of the petitioner as raiyat of the land. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners next submits that this Court in the case of Ramnandan Singh vs. the State of Bihar & Ors., 2014 (2) PLJR 636, had clearly held that if any jamabandi was created in the year 1956 and is to be cancelled under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, in that event, the Collector can invoke the power under Section 4(h) of the Act only when three contingencies arise, i.e., (i) where soon after vesting, it is found that any settlement had been made by the ex-landlord after 1st day of January 1946, the genuineness of those settlements could be examined for the reason of avoidance of consequences of Zamindari abolition, (ii) where settlements were made to enhance the claim Patna High Court CWJC No.1241 of 2024(6) dt.27-01-2025 11/16 of compensation of Zamindari abolition, and (iii) such settlements were made to cheat the government, further this Court, relying on precedents as recorded at para-7 of the aforesaid judgment, also recorded that it has been held that if State for any reason wants to challenge the authority or title of any person based on such settlements, then the only option left to the State is to approach the civil court for cancellation of the jamabandi. The learned counsel also relies on the case of Jagarnath Jha vs. the State of Bihar & Ors, 2023 (4) PLJR 565, to submit that this Court has held that if State is disputing long standing jamabandi, the only option left to the State is to approach the competent civil court for appropriate relief, but instead of doing so, the State has cancelled the long standing jamabandi in a summary proceeding, which is illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioner thus reiterates his submission and submits that what is not in dispute rather stands admitted in the case is that as per revisional survey khatiyan (Annexure-1) the land in dispute was recorded in the name of B.B. Sinha, the grand father of the petitioner, in whose name Jamabandi No.232 was created and in the year 1997, Jamabandi No.1362 was created in the name of Krishna Kishore Sinha (father of the petitioner), as such if Patna High Court CWJC No.1241 of 2024(6) dt.27-01-2025 12/16 Jamabandi No.1362 stands cancelled, the same amounts to indirectly questioning the Jamabandi No.232, which was in the name of B.B. Sinha and the same was never in dispute. It is also submitted that even the family of the petitioner sold several plots including plot in dispute to various persons, whose jamabandis were also created and one of the jamabandi was created in the year 1961-62 and rest of the jamabandis were created in between 1991-2015 and the purchasers after purchasing the land even got the same mutated which amply demonstrates that the authorities at no point of time were disputing that the land in dispute is a government land or else Jamabandi in the name of purchasers who purchased the land from the family of the petitioner would not have been created. It is next submitted that the private respondent who is a land grabber against whom a criminal case is also instituted, after taking the Circle Officer in connivance got a report prepared behind the back of the petitioner and got the same sent by the Circle Officer through the D.C.L.R. before the ADM for registering the aforesaid Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.166/2022-23. It is further submitted that the Land Measurement Case No.9/2018 was given a complete go by. The learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that since Patna High Court CWJC No.1241 of 2024(6) dt.27-01-2025 13/16 cancellation of Jamabandi No.1362 indirectly questions the Jamabandi No.232 which is a long standing jamabandi as such same could not have been cancelled in a summary proceeding as held by this Court, as recorded, hereinabove, hence the order impugned becomes vulnerable and thus prays that the same be set aside. 11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and the private respondent submits that the petitioner has rushed to this Court against the order impugned when he has remedy of appeal before the Collector, on which, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that no doubt the petitioner has a remedy of appeal before the Collector but since this Court as recorded hereinabove has held that long standing jamabandi cannot be cancelled in a summary proceeding as such the petitioner moved before this Court. The learned State counsel thereafter by placing reliance on counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 submits that inquiry was held in pursuance of the complaint filed by the respondent no.11 before the Sub Divisional Public Grievance Redressal Officer, Marhowra complaining that the land in dispute has been encroached by the petitioner and based on the report of Halka Karmchari, a recommendation was made Patna High Court CWJC No.1241 of 2024(6) dt.27-01-2025 14/16 before the Additional Collector for cancelling the jamabandi, on which, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that it absolutely does not stand to reason that if the land in dispute was a government land and the petitioner was a encroacher then how several jamabandis came to be created in the name of purchasers from the family of the petitioner who purchased portion of the land in dispute and one of the jamabandis so created in favour of the purchaser is of the year 1961-62, which amply demonstrates that the respondent no.11 after taking the Circle Officer in connivance got a report prepared by the Halka Karmchari behind the back of the petitioner for getting the jamabandi cancelled. The learned State counsel next submits that the land in dispute was being used as a passage (Rasta) since long, on which, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that had the land been used as a rasta by the villagers since long and the same would have been encroached by the petitioner in that event the villagers would have made hue and cry but then that is not the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner again reiterates and submits that cancelling Jamabandi No.1362 indirectly questions the Jamabandi No.232 as Jamabandi No.1362 in the name of the father of the petitioner was an off shoot of Jamabandi No.232. Patna High Court CWJC No.1241 of 2024(6) dt.27-01-2025 15/16 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, thereafter draws the attention of the Court to the impugned order to submit that the same is cryptic for the reason that it does not assign any reason for cancelling jamabandi except that the petitioner was not in a position to produce the copy of the zamindari return in the case to establish his case and from the documents available on record it does not appear that the concerned Tauzi was free from the land holder. The learned counsel thus submits that the reason assigned for cancelling the jamabandi is not clear nor the Additional Collector has dealt with the plea of the petitioner in the Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.166/2022-23. 12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court comes to a conclusion that the Additional Collector, Saran at Chapra ought not to have cancelled the Jamabandi No.1362, standing in the name of Krishna Kishore Sinha, father of the petitioner as Jamabandi No.1362 was an off shoot of Jamabandi No.232, which was recorded in the name of B.B. Sinha, the grand father of the petitioner and the same was a long standing jamabandi and by cancelling Jamabandi no.1362, the Additional Collector indirectly questioned the Jamabandi No.232 and if the authorities were of the view that Jamabandi Patna High Court CWJC No.1241 of 2024(6) dt.27-01-2025 16/16 No.232 and 1362 were not created in accordance with law in that event they had remedy of approaching a Court of competent civil jurisdiction for getting both the jamabandis cancelled but then by not doing so and cancelling the jamabandi in a summary proceeding cannot be sustained, as such, the order dated 03.02.2024 passed by the Additional Collector, Saran in Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.166/2022-23 is hereby set aside. 13. It is made clear that the authorities will not disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioner over the land pertaining to Khata No.122, Plot No. 491, area 19 katha 4 dhur at mauza- Dumarsar, District Saran. 14. It is further made clear that the present order would not come in the way of the authorities in approaching a Court of competent civil jurisdiction for getting the Jamabandi standing in the name of father and grand father of the petitioner cancelled in accordance with law. amit/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U