2025:JHHC:12294 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (C) No. 6707 of 2017 Rabindra Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Ram Narayan Sharma, R/o Polytechnic Road, PO +PS and District- Dhanbad. .... .. ... Petitioner(s) Versus 1.State of Jharkhand through Dy. Commissioner, Dhanbad. 2.Dy Commissioner, Dhanbad. 3.Jharkhand Mineral Area Development, represented through its Managing Director, having its office at Dhanbad. 4.Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad. . .. ... ...Respondent(s) ........... CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ......... For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate Mr. J. Mazumdar & Mr. N. Roy, Advs. For the State : Mr. Amitesh Kr. Geasen, AC to AAG.IA For the Resp.3 : Mr. Mahavir Pd. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kr. Jha, Advocate …... 19/ 24.04.2025. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Sandigdh Jamabandi Record No.3 /2015 including the order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the Respondent no.4 [Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Dhanbad] wherein the jamabandi standing in the name of the petitioner has been recommended to be cancelled. 2. Matter pertains to land situated within Mouza-Hirapur (Mouza No. 07), Khata No. 136, Plot No. 92 measuring an area of 3750 square feet. Petitioner purchased the land from Baldeo Singh by registered deed no. 1880/98 and it was duly mutated in the name of the petitioner. 3. The said land was part of the plot purchased by the vendor of the petitioner , from one Smt. Shantilata Devi by registered deed No. 9899 dated 21.11.1984 and was duly mutated vide Mutation Case No. 17/11/Hirapur-85-86. 4. Smt. Shanti Lata Devi had purchased the said land from Sri Jyotish Chandra Chatopadhyay by registered deed no. 8699 dated 13.05.1959, who had purchased it from the receiver of Jharia Raj Estate Sri Sachindra Mohan Ghosh vide Deed No. 4043 of 1928 dated 12.12.1928. 5. In this way the petitioner and the predecessor-in-interest had continued to be in possession of the land in question since 1928. 2025:JHHC:12294 2 6. Thereafter the petitioner had moved before the MADA on 06.06.2014 for sanction of the map for development of the said land which was recommended and the building plan was also sanctioned. Petitioner was restrained from the construction of work by the letter issued by the LRDC, Dhanbad in view of the pending enquiry. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the receiver of Jharia Raj Estate was duly authorized by the Calcutta High Court to execute the deed of conveyance on the basis of which the land was transferred from one Sachindra Mohan Ghosh to Jyotish Chandra Chatopadhyay and thereafter, has been in continuous possession and the State has been receiving rent with respect to it after due entry of the parties in the revenue record. 8. Long running jamabandi, without any decision by competent Civil Court, could not have been cancelled in view of the settled law. It is argued that an inquiry under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act is also not permissible, as original settlement took place in 1928, i.e. before settlement on 01.01.1946. Reliance is placed on LPA No. 786/2018 and its connected matters, wherein, it has been held that where settlement has been made before 01.01.1946, Section 49(h) for its enquiry under the provisions of BLR Act, cannot be initiated. 9. Learned counsel on behalf of the State submits that the petitioner failed to produce any valid order on the basis of which mutation was made in their names and, therefore, the jamabandi was recommended for cancellation as the jamabandi was opened without the order of any Competent Authority. Settlement of land was made in 1928 only for five years on condition that the land will be converted for cultivation, but there was breach of the terms of settlement. 10. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, undisputed fact that emerges is that land, in question was settled way back in 1928 by a registered deed. After the said settlement almost, a century has elapsed in which the land changed hands several times, and the same being acknowledged in the entries made in the serishta of the Govt. Under the circumstance jamabandi cannot be cancelled, nor peaceful possession of the 2025:JHHC:12294 3 petitioner, can be interfered without any order passed by a competent court. 11. Under the circumstance the order dated 31.05.2017 passed by the Respondent no.4 is quashed. Writ petition is allowed. Pending I.A(s)., if any, stands disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/