2025:JHHC:15324 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (C) No. 2635 of 2024 ---- Md. Jasim, aged about 62 years, son of late Md. Yasin Ansari, resident of 70, C.I.C. Basti, Barkakana, P.O. Barkakana, P.S. Patratu, District Ramgarh. ..........Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, having its registered office at Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, having its at Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh. 3. Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ramgarh having its at Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, District Ramgarh. 4. Circle Officer, Patratu having its office at Patratu, P.O. and P.S. Patratu, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand. .........Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG-III Order No. 06/ dated 04.04.2025 That in this writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: (a) For issuance of a Writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 18.01.2024 (part of Annexure-12) passed by the Circle Officer, Patratu, Ramgarh in connection with Miscellaneous Case No. 02/2021- 2022/07/2022, whereby and whereunder, the Circle Officer, Ramgarh, on the basis of the order passed by the Land Reforms Deputy Collector on 31.08.2023, has annulled order dated 13.07.2022 passed by the Circle Officer, Patratu, Patratu, Ramgarh Circle Officer, by which the application of the petitioner was disposed off with certain directions, which was filed for correction of the JambandiKhata, Plot No. and area with respect to the land situated at MaujaBarkakana, Khata No. 58, Plot No. 364 measuring an area of 1.43 acres, Plot No. 652 measuring an area of 0.475 acre, Khata No. 77 Plot No. 365 measuring an area of 0.26 acre i.e. total 2.165 acres; (b) Further forquashing of the order dated 31.08.2023 (part of Annexure- 12), whereby and whereunder, the Land Reforms Deputy Collector (L.R.D.C.), Ramgarh has accepted the report and recommendation of the Circle Officer, Patratu, Ramgarh by which it has come to the knowledge of the respondent authorities through various undisclosed sources that the lands for which the application for correction of khata, plot No. and area and consequently vide order dated 13.07.2022 was disposed off was already acquired by the Railways and was also purchased by subsequent purchasers through auction purchase from Railways and that the jamabandi in the favour of Khuda Baksh Miyan was not as per Khatiyan and ordered that the orderdated 13.07.2022 passed by the Circle Officer be set aside and further 2025:JHHC:15324 directed to pass fresh order with respect to the application of the petitioner as per the prevalent rules and provisions of law; (c) Further for quashing of the order dated 27.03.2023 (part of Annexure- 12), whereby the Circle Officer, Patratuhad himself forwarded his order dated 13.07.2022 seeking therein permission from the L.R.D.C. to set aside his own order dated 13.07.2022 which was based on some undisclosed source of information that the lands were acquired by the railway and certain remaining lands were also sold by railway through auction sale and that the jambandi running in favour of the Khuda Baksh Miyan was not as per Khatiyan; (d) Upon quashing of the aforesaid orders, the application of the petitioner seeking the correction in the JamabandiKhata, Plot No. and area for the lands pertaining MaujaBarkakana, Khata No. 58, Plot No. 364 measuring an area of 1.43 acres, Plot No. 652 measuring an area of 0.475 acre, Khata No. 77 Plot No. 365 measuring an area of 0.26 acre i.e. total 2.165 acres may be allowed; 2. The brief facts of the case as it appears from the pleadings are that Sheikh Langra was the original raiyat of Khata No. 58, Plot No. 209 area 30decimals, Plot No. 316 area 2 acres 34 decimals, Plot no. 329 area 1 acre 82 decimals, Plot No. 364 area 2 acre 97 decimal, Plot nо. 443 area 1acre 31 decimals, Plot no. 633 area 7 decimal, 652 area 91 decimals, Plot No. 705 area 3 decimals, Plot No. 706 area 35 decimals, Plot No. 815 area 35 decimals, Plot No. 816 area 1 acre 94 decimals, having a total area of 12.43 acres and the lands pertaining to Khata No. 59 was also under the possession of Sheik Langra. The petitioner is the descendant of Sheikh Langra. In the year 2021 an application was made by the Petitioner for correction of online revenue records (jambandikhata) and for necessary measurement on the existing Plot by the petitioner before the Circle Officer, Patratu, Ramgarh with respect to land appertaining to Khata No. 58, as well as Khata No. 77. Consequently, a Misc case being Misc Case No. 02/21- 22/07/2022 was opened by the Circle Officer, Patratu, Ramgarh and after initiation of proceedings, the Circle Officer called for a report from the concerned Circle Inspector. Thereafter, the Circle Officer passed a reasoned order vide order dated 13.07.2022 and allowed mutation of certain portion of land and directed the Amin to take necessary steps for the updating of the revenue records. 2025:JHHC:15324 3. The Petitioner thereafter preferred applications for demarcation of land;however, in the meanwhile the Circle Officer himself, in the same proceeding, vide order dated 27.03.2023 had forwarded report seeking recommendation from the LRDC, Ramgarh to annul its own order dated 13.07.2022. The LRDC, Ramgarh, in the same proceedings accepted the report of Circle Officer and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner,vide order dated 31.08.2023, the order dated 13.07.2022 was annulled and fresh direction was given to Circle Officer to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Finally in the same proceeding, the Circle Officer, Ramgarh issued notice and vide order dated 18.01.2024 annulled the order dated 13.07.2022. Aggrieved by this the petitioners have preferred this writ application. 4. Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned orders passed by the Circle Officer, Ramgarh setting aside its own order dated 13.07.2022 is without jurisdiction and is therefore liable to be quashed and set aside as the Circle officer does not have the power to appeal against his own order. He further submits that the L.R.D.C erred in not considering the fact that none of the aggrieved parties had appealed against the order dated 13.07.2022;as such, it is glaring example of arbitrariness and high-handedness committed by the respondent authorities. 5. Further, it has been submitted that lands belonging at Khata No.58 are raiyati in nature and khata no.77 is gairmazrua in nature which has been settled to ancestor of the Petitioner through Hukumnama followed by rent receipts. He reiterated that while passing the impugned order, the L.R.D.C did not provide any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner; as such on this ground itself the impugned order is liable to set aside. 6. Learned counsel of the Respondents submits that as per revenue records held in the office of Respondent No. 4, the land of Khata No. 58, Plot No. 364 of village Barkakana has been recorded in the name of Sheikh Langra and other son of Sheikh Momin in last 2025:JHHC:15324 Cadastral Survey Khatiyan and Khata No. 77 Plot No 365 is recorded as Gairmajurwa Khas. It is further submitted that In Register II, Page No 241/I, Khata No 58 and 77, Plot No 364 and 365 total area 0.36 acres and 0.26 acres total area 0.62 acres; land jamabandi is recorded in the name of Khoda Baksh Miyan and others son of Laskari Miyan in Miscellaneous Case No. 6/94-95 by the order of Competent authority. In the said jamabandi, an application of the Petitioner was received in the office of Respondent No 4 for recording of land of Khata No 58, Plot No 652,705 and 706, area 0.47 ½ acres, 0.03 acres, 0.35acres, total area 0.85 ½ acres. In the light of application of the Petitioner, office of Anchal Adhikari, Patratu had passed an order to amend the same vide Misc. Case No 32/2022, but the then Respondent No. 4 Suo Motu had again recommended and filed an appeal before the Court of Respondent No. 3 to annul his order. In the light of recommendations made by the Respondent No. 4, the Respondents No. 3 had annulled the same on 31.08.2023. 7. It also has been submitted by the State Respondents that the petitioner has filed this writ petition without knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the case as the Respondents had refused to enter the name of the petitioner stating that the Register II which is Government Records shows that the land involved in Khata No. 58, Plot No. 443 and different plots of village Teliyatu which have been acquired by the Railway for their necessity and after completion of work, the Railway had auction sale the land, which was purchased by father of Bhagwan Mishra. Hence, the claim of the Petitioner is false. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits it appears that the Petitioner happens to be descendant of Sheikh Langra who was the original Raiyat of land pertaining to Khata no. 58 and 59 and who acquired the land pertaining to Khata no. 77 plot no. 365 through Hukumnama. When the petitioner came to know that the aforementioned land has been acquired by Railways and upon enquiry from the office 2025:JHHC:15324 of Deputy Commissioner, he found that there were no documents available of the said acquisition by the Railways.It further appears that in the year 2021, the Petitioner preferred an application before the Circle Officer for correction of online revenue records which was allowed vide order dated 13.07.2022. 9. After issuance of rent receipt, the Petitioner preferred an application for demarcation of land before the Circle Officer and in the same proceeding the Circle Officer vide order dated 27.03.2023forwarded the report to L.R.D.C seeking recommendation to annul the order dated 13.07.2022. The report was accepted vide order dated 31.08.2023 and the order dated 13.07.2022 was annulled and direction was given to Circle Officer to pass a fresh order and finally the Circle Officer issued notice and vide order dated 18.01.2024 annulled the order dated 13.07.2022. 10. It appears that the Circle Officer had preferred an appeal against its own order before L.R.D.C in the name of recommendation; which is in contravention of the settled law that a quasi-judicial authority cannot prefer an appeal against its own order1 and in contravention of Section 15 of The Bihar Tenant’s Holding (Maintenance of Record) Act, 1973. The provision is quoted herein below: “Appeals (1) An appeal shall lie to Land Reforms Deputy Collector against the order of Anchal Adhikari passed under Sub Section ((2)) of Section 14, if preferred within [thirty days] of the date of the order appeal against. (2) No order modifying, altering or setting aside any order appealed against shall be passed under this section unless the parties concerned have been given reasonable opportunity of being heard. (3) Subject to the provision of the order of Land Reform Deputy Collector on appeal final.” 11. From bare perusal of the provisions, it is evident that on the one hand; the Circle Officer does not have the power to appeal against his own order, and on the other hand; the appeal has to be filed within 30 days of his order. In the case in handnone of the aggrieved parties appealed from the order dated 13.07.2022 and the appeal which 1SEE,W.P. (C) No. 4938 of 2016 (Hansraj Ram and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Others), (1987) 4 SCC 525 (Kuntesh Gupta v. Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya) 2025:JHHC:15324 was filed by the Circle Officer was filed on 27.03.2023 and the order was passed on 31.08.2023 for correction of online revenue records mutation and issuance of rent receipts, indicating therein that the entire appeal was filed after a delay of more than 160 days without any plausible explanation. 12. Further Subsection (2) of Section 15 of the 1973 Act provides for audi alteram partem; however, after perusing the order passed by L.R.D.C it is crystal clear that no opportunity of being heard was provided to the Petitioner and the order was passed in grave violation of natural justice as such it is non-est in the eyes of law. 13. Having regard to the above discussion, the order dated 18.01.2024 (part of Annexure-12), whereby the Circle Officer has annulled the order dated 13.07.2022, the order dated 31.08.2023 (part of Annexure-12), whereby the L.R.D.C., Ramgarh has accepted the report and recommendation of the Circle Officer and order dated 27.03.2023 (part of Annexure-12) whereby the Circle Officer had forwarded the order dated 13.07.2022 to L.R.D.C. seeking permission to set it aside; are hereby, quashed and set aside. 14. The writ application stands allowed and pending I.A. if any are also disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Kunal