2025:JHHC:38754 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No.1615 of 2017 …. 1. Kishori Sah, aged about 74 years, son of Babulal Sao, resident of village Kabilasi, P.O. Punai, P.S. Daru, District Hazaribag, 2. Chandeshwar Sao, aged about 68 years, son of Late Gannu Sao, resident of village Kabilasi, P.O. Punai, P.S. Daru, District Hazaribag, 3. Arjun Gope, aged about 62 years, son of Late Jodha Gope, resident of village Kabilasi, P.O. Punai, P.S. Daru, District Hazaribag, 4. Razaque Ali, aged about 69 years, son of Dulo Mian, resident of village Kabilasi, P.O. Punai, P.S. Daru, District Hazaribag, 5. Nezamuddin, aged about 65 years, son of Sahdul Mian, resident of village Kabilasi, P.O. Punai, P.S. Daru, District Hazaribag, 6. Mokhtar Ali, aged about 65 years, son of Abdul Mian, resident of village Kabilasi, P.O. Punai, P.S. Daru, District Hazaribag, 7.Haider Ali, aged about 77 years, son of Late Kamal Mian, resident of village Kabilasi, P.O. Punai, P.S. Daru, District Hazaribag, 8. Laxman Giri, aged about 70 years, son of Late Gorakhnath Giri, resident of village Kabilasi, P.O. Punai, P.S. Daru, District Hazaribag, ……Petitioners Versus 1. State of Jharkhand, 2. Secretary, Land Reforms and Revenue Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, H.E.C. Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi, 3. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. P.S. and District Hazaribag, 4. Circle Officer, Daru, P.O. and P.S. Daru, District Hazaribag, 5. Vishwanath Baidh son of Late Baijnath Baidh, resident of village Kabilasi, P.O. Punai, P.S. Daru, District Hazaribagh ……Respondent ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD ----- For the Petitioners : Mr. J.P. Jha, Sr. Advocate For the State : Mr. Jai Prakash, AAG-IA, Mr. Amitesh Kr. Geasen, AC to AAG-IA For the Resp. No.5 : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate …… Pronounced on 22.12.2025 1. This amended writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner in the light of order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the 2 Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kmar Choudhary) of this Court for grant of following reliefs: - (A) For direction upon the respondents particularly respondent no.3 and 4 to take action strictly in view of the direction given by Member, Board of Revenue in its letter no.9 (M) dated 7.1.2016 (as contained in Annexure-3 to this writ application). (B) To call for and quash the Jamabandi opened/rent receipt issued in favour of respondent no.5 in pursuance of letter no.1314 dated 9.10.2015 issued by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi. (C) For direction upon the respondent no.5 restraining him from interfering the peaceful possession of the petitioners and other villagers of the land of Khata no.36, Plot No.1355, 839 and 842 measuring a total area of 24.79 acres situated at village Kabilasi, Circle Daru, District Hazaribag. Amended prayer: - (D) For quashing the order bearing memo no.2582/Go. dated 16.10.2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag whereby the said authority has directed the Circle Officer, Daru, District Hazaribag to issue Government rent receipt in pursuance of letter no.1314 dated 09.10.2015 of Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi in the name of Vishwanath Vaidh (respondent no.5) of the land of village Kabilasi bearing Khata No.36 Plot No.1355 area 19.60 Acre and Plot No.839 and 842 Area 5.19 Acre within three days and submit compliance report; and order dated 16.10.2015 passed by the Circle Officer, Daru in Misc. Case No.08/15-16 whereby the said authority has directed Halka Karmachari to issue Government receipt of the aforesaid land in pursuance of the aforesaid order (Annexure-10 and 11) and 3 for other ancillary reliefs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Respondent No.5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Letter dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure-10) issued by Respondent No.4 is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted that the Circle Officer, Daru, Hazaribag has passed the order dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure-11) directing the Halka Karamchari to issue rent receipt of the land in question without asking objection from the petitioners and without serving a notice to the petitioners and the aforesaid order dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure-11) has been passed by the Circle Officer, Daru in complete violation of principles of natural justice. 4. It is submitted that the order passed by the Circle Officer, Daru, is completely under the influence of the letter dated 9.10.2015 of the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi and on direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure-10). It is submitted that 01 acres is Aahar, 04 acres is grazing field (Charagah) Chhath Ghat, Karbala etc. are the public land, however, the same has also been included in the land of Respondent No.5 which is grave error on the part of the Respondent No.3-4. 5. It is submitted that the aforesaid verification report dated 22.04.2016 (Annexure-12) has also been prepared without giving notice to the petitioners and which is illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice and has caused prejudiced to the petitioners as such the aforesaid orders of the Circle Officer, Daru and the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag are fit to be 4 quashed by this Court. 6. It is submitted that the direction given by the Member, Board of Revenue in his letter no.9 dated 07.01.2016 (i.e. Annexure-3) was made on the complaint of the petitioners and large number of persons of the locality were affected but the petitioners were neither given any notice nor were heard by the Circle Officer, Daru which is in contravention to the natural justice and fair play. 7. It is submitted that the said plot of out the land, settlement of certain portion of land were also made in favour of ancestors of the petitioners and the petitioners are cultivating over the said land since long. However, Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag and the Circle Officer, Daru without hearing the petitioners, have passed the aforesaid order dated 16.10.2025 (i.e. Annexure-10) and dated 16.10.2015 (i.e. Annexure-11) which was never communicated to the petitioners earlier and based on that rent receipt of the entire aforesaid land has been issued in favour of Respondent no.5 and hence in the interest of justice the order bearing memo no.2582/Go. dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure-10) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag and order dated 16.10.2015 (Annexure-11) passed by the Circle Officer, Daru in Misc. Case No.08/15-16 may set aside by this Court. 8. It is submitted that the action of the concerned Respondents for not following and implementing the direction given in letter no. 9 (M) dated 07.01.2016 by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi is completely illegal, arbitrary and against the law. 9. It is submitted that the action of the Respondents for opening new jamabandi in favour of Respondent No.5 by 5 cancelling the jamabandi running in favour of the petitioners of the portion of the land under Khata No.36 is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law. 10. It is submitted that the Respondent nos. 3 and 4 are duty bound to implement the direction as envisaged in the letter dated 07.01.2016 (Annexure-3 of the amended writ petition) in its true spirit. 11. It is further submitted that the Respondent No.4 may be restrained from giving effect to opening of new jamabandi created in the name of Respondent No.5. Hence this writ petition may be allowed. 12. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the impugned Letter dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure-10) passed by the Respondent No.3 i.e. D.C. Hazaribagh and order dated 16.10.2025 (Annexure-11) passed by Respondent No.4 i.e. the C.O. Daru are fit and proper and no interference is required from this Court. 13. It is submitted that for the lands of village Kabilasi, Thana No. 122, Thana Daroo, District Hazaribagh relates to khata no. 36, plot no.1355 measuring an area of 19.60 acres and plot no.839 and 842 area 5.19 acres, total 24.79 acres, the Respondents no.5 made an application to the Member Board of Revenue Govt. of Jharkhand claiming to be owner of entire land of khata no.36, concerning plot no.1355, 839 and 842 as aforesaid. On the other hand, the petitioners and other villages of the said village Kabilasi made a joint representation before the Principal Secretary, Land Reforms, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi stating therein that a wrong jamabandi had been created in the name of Respondent no.5 by the Circle Officer, Daroo. 14. Thereafter, the Member, Board of Revenue issued a letter 6 bearing its no.1314 dated 09.10.2015 directing the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh to make thorough enquiry with reference to letter no.1314 dated 09.10.2015 and it was directed that in case any wrong jamabandi has been opened in the name of Respondent no.5 then a positive action be taken against him. 15. Then, Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh directed to Anchal Adhikari, Daroo vide memo no. 2582 dated 16.10.2015 to make an appropriate enquiry. A notice was issued by the Anchal Adhikari, Daroo to Respondent no.5 and other interested persons of Village Kabilasi. The Respondent no.5 filed a petition before Anchal Adhikari, Daroo and claimed entire area of Khata no.36 plot No.1355, 839 and 842 for an area of 24.79 acres out of 60.28 acres. Thereafter, the learned Anchal Adhikari, Daroo, a Misc. Case No.02/15-16 was initiated and detailed enquiry was conducted by the Respondent no.4 wherein it was found that the Jamabandi for an area of 24.79 acres was created in the name of Respondent no.5 for the year 1964-65 and new jamabandi was found mentioned in Register II at Page 89 and 90 in the name of Bishwanath Baidh son of Late Baijnath and Baidh after initiating a Misc. Case No.17/64-65 and 18/64-65 a demand was opened in the name of Respondent no.5. 16. The spot enquiry was held by Addl. Collector, Hazaribagh along with Anchal Adhikari-cum-B.D.O., Daroo Circle Inspector, Revenue Karamchari and Anchal Amin in presence of villages of village Kabilasi. The enquiry was made on the basis of revenue records. 17. It is submitted that the petitioners and the Respondent no.5 were given ample opportunity and they were heard in course 7 of enquiry. However, the petitioners filed forged and fabricated documents of Hukumnama, said to be granted by Dashrath Singh and others and Most. Pato Kunwari and others, in favour of Chaman Mahto of village Kabilasi but neither Chaman Mahto nor his descendants are the petitioners in the instant writ petition. In course of enquiry it was also found that the settlement made to the Bishwanath Baidh is out of forest demarcation area. It is wrongly alleged by the petitioners in course of enquiry that the lands of an area of 01 acres is Aahar, 04 acres is grazing field (Charagah) Chhath Ghat, Karbala etc. are the public land and the land is used for Deity Place. But on enquiry it was specifically found that the public lands are not included and covered under the lands settled to Respondent no. 5. 18. It is submitted that the documents presented by Respondent nо.5 were not found forged or fabricated. However, an order was passed for continuation of issuance of rent receipts to the Respondent no.5 with reference and in compliance of memo no.2582 dated 16.10.2015 and also in compliance with the letter no.1314 dated 09.10.2015 and the demand was opened and rent receipt was ordered to be issued in the name of Respondent No.5. 19. Thereafter, the petitioners moved before the Hon’ble High Court for a direction upon the Respondent particularly Respondent no.3 and 4 to take action strictly as aforesaid prayed in this writ petition. 20. It is submitted that the petitioners were never in peaceful possession over the lands of khata no.36 plot no.1355, 839 and 842 total measuring area 24.79 acres in view of the report submitted by Anchal Adhikari, Daroo and the ancestors of the petitioners had not been settled and on enquiry no houses of the 8 petitioners was found. 21. It is submitted that the Respondent no. 5 Bishwanath Baidh had filed an application on 09.10.2015 before the Member Board of Revenue, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi and claimed the area of khata no.36, concerning plot no.1355 an area of 19.60 acres, besides he also claimed the plot no.839 and 842 for an area of 5.19 acres total area 24.79 acres and filed the relevant documents in support of his claim. Even the record of Register II of village Kabilasi reveals at page No.127 corresponding to running page 49 reference of page no. 89 and 90 that vide Misc. Case No. 17 of 64-65 and Misc. Case No. 18 of 64-65 the Jamabandi for land of khata no.36 out of plot no. 1355 and area of 19.60 acres and plot no.839 and 842, and area of 5.19 acres total areas 24.79 acres was created in the name of Bishwanath Baidh (i.e. Respondent No.5) and annual rent of Rs. 12/- and Rs. 3/- respectively were realized from the Respondent no.5 and the photocopy of Register II of Khata no.36 standing in the name of Respondent no.5 have been enclosed as Annexure -B, B/1 and B/2 respectively to the Counter Affidavit. 22. It is submitted that vide letter no.1314 dated 09.10.2015 issued by the Members Board of Revenue, Department of Jharkhand as well as Dy. Commissioner, Hazaribagh vide his letter no.2582 dated 16.10.2015 they had directed the Anchal Adhikari, Daroo to issue rent receipt in the name of Respondent no.5. Hence this writ petition may be dismissed. 23. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 submitted that the impugned orders are fit and proper and this writ petition is not fit to be dismissed and the Petitioners have suppressed various relevant facts. 9 24. It is submitted that the records of Register II of Village - Kabilasi and as recorded in Page-127 corresponding to running Page 49 reference of Pages 89 and 90 is there wherein it is mentioned that vide Misc. Case No. 17 of 64-65 and Misc. Case No. 18 of 64-65, Jamabandi for land under Khata No.36 out of Plot No.1355 an area measuring 19.60 acres and Plot No.839 and 842 an area measuring 5.19 acres of land totaling 24.79 acres (Annexure-A) was created in the name of Vishwanath Baidh son of Late Baijhnath Baidh (Respondent No. 5) for an annual rent of Rs. 12/- and Rs.3/- respectively. 25. It is submitted that since then i.e. from 1964-65 till 1976- 77 Government Rent Receipts were being regularly issued in the name of Vishwanath Baidya (Respondent No. 5) and the photocopy of Rent Receipts issued in the name of Respondent No.5 since 1965 till 1977 have been enclosed Annexure – B series. However, on 17.08.2015, the Respondent No.5 filed an application (i.e. Annexure-C) before the Circle Officer, Daru, Hazaribagh intimating therein that the Jamabandi has been running in his name in respect of an area of 19.60 acres out of Plot No.1355 and in respect of an area of 5.19 out of plot nos.839 and 842 under Khata No.36 in Mouza- Kavilashi and rent receipts were issued since 1965-66 to 1977-78 and also requested for issuance of rent receipts upon payment of rent. 26. Thereafter, on 21.08.2015 (i.e. Annexure-D), the Respondent No.5 also requested then Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh for a direction upon the Circle Officer, Daru, Hazaribagh to issue rent receipt after accepting rent from him since 1978-79 in respect of the aforesaid lands. 27. Then, a Notice issued under Memo No.340 dated 10 03.09.2015, the Respondent No.4 (Circle Officer) asked the Petitioners to produce relevant documents in respect of the aforesaid lands. Accordingly, on 09.09.2015, the Respondent No.5 submitted explanation of status therein that the Jamabandi was created in his name in respect of the said land and rent receipts were issued up to 1977-78. The Respondent No.5 also enclosed therewith copy of the letter / order issued under Memo No.87 dated 16.01.1965 by the then Circle Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Ichak. In support of his explanation, the Respondent No.5 also submitted photocopy of the Certified copy of Register-II, rent receipts as well as Certified copy of the Return submitted by the ex-landlord along with the explanation. He also mentioned that save and except the piece of land measuring a total area of 24.79 acres out of the aforesaid plot Nos.1355, 839 and 842 under Khata no.36, he has no concern with the remaining land of those plots. The Respondent No.5 has also pointed out that he has no concern with the alleged tank, road or the Panchayat building situated in the Village. The said explanation of the Respondent No.5 was duly received in the office of the Respondent No.4 on 09.09.2015 (i.e. Annexure-E). 28. Thereafter, the Respondent No.5 submitted his representation on 02.10.2015 before the Respondent No.2 with a request for issuance of an appropriate direction upon the Respondent No.4 to issue rent receipt. Then, by letter No.1314 dated 09.10.2015 (i.e. Annexure-F), the Respondent No.2, directed the Respondent No.3 to take steps for issuance of the rent receipts to the Respondent no.5 in respect of the aforesaid lands and to submit 11 compliance report. 29. It is submitted that vide Memo No.2582 dated 16.10.2015 (i.e. Annexure-G), the Respondent No.3, while enclosing a copy of the letter No.1314 dated 09.10.2015 issued by the Respondent No.2, directed the Respondent No.4 to take appropriate steps in the matter for issuance of rent receipt after 1977-78. Then, the Respondent No.4 initiated a proceeding being Misc. Case No.2 of 2015-16 on the basis of the direction as issued by the Respondent No.3 vide Memo No.2582 dated 16.10.2015 (i.e. Annexure-H) read with letter of the Respondent No.2 dated 09.10.2015 and after verification of the documents as well as the concerned records, directed the Halka Karamchari to issue rent receipts in respect of the aforesaid lands in favour of the Respondent No.5. 30. However, on the basis of a complaint made on 04.01.2016 by Kishori Sah and 33 others, coupled with another application dated 25.01.2016, filed by Kishori Sah and four others as well as the application of the Respondent No.5 dated 02.06.2015 and issued under Memo No.347 dated 06.02.2016 (i.e. Annexure-I), by which the Respondent No.3 requested the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh to verify the matter personally and to submit his report in the matter. 31. It is submitted that by letter No.155 dated 22.04.2016, the Respondent No.4, after physical verification of the lands in- question as well as the records and the documents furnished before him, submitted a detailed report before the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh. In the said report, the Respondent No.4 pointed out that out of total area of 60.28 acres of land in plot nos.839, 842 and 1355 under Khata No.36 in Mouza- Kavilashi, Jamabandi was 12 created in favour of the Respondent No.5 and entered at page No.89 and 90 of Register-II in the year 1964-65 in terms of the orders passed in Misc. Case No.17 of 1964-65 and Misc. Case No.18 of 1964-65. 32. It transpires by letter No.32 dated 08.02.2017 (i.e. Annexure-K), the Respondent No.4 submitted a report to the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Hazaribagh in compliance to letter No. 947 dated 30.01.2017 issued by the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh mentioning therein that no rent receipt has been issued in favour of the Respondent No.5 by opening a new Jamabandi. On the other hand, Jamabandi was created in favour of Respondent No.5 since 1964-65. It has also been made clear that physical verification of the lands -in-question was made by a Team consisting of Additional Collector, Hazaribagh, Circle Officer, Circle Inspector, Halka Karamcahri, In-charge Amin and the Police force and in presence of the villagers wherefrom it was established that the lands measuring an area of 24.79 acres out of Plot Nos. 839, 842 and 1355 are under cultivating possession of the Respondent No.5. 33. It is submitted that after full satisfaction on the basis of the records maintained in the office of the Respondent No.4 as well as after spot enquiry by the aforesaid Team and only thereafter, the Respondent No.4 issued rent receipts (Annexure-L series) in respect of the aforesaid lands in favour of the Respondent No.5 for the year from 1977-78 to 2015-16 and also for the year 2016-17. 34. It is further submitted that the Respondent No.5 is in actual cultivative possession on and over plot no.839, 842 and 1355 under khata no.36 having an area of 24.79 acres and over 13 which cultivation is being made since 1965 in open assertion and to the knowledge of all concerned and without any objection prior to the present one. Hence the claim of writ petitioner's for possession over land in question do not arise and the documents upon which petitioners' are harping are suspicious and manufactured documents. 35. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.5 has relied upon the case of Izhar Hussain vs. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary and Ors. reported in WP(C) No.593 of 2017 and also relied in the case of The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary and Ors. vs. Izhar Hussain reported in LPA No.786 of 2018 and Ors and in the case of Surajdeo Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in WP(C) No.7595 of 2012 and also relied upon the case of Jitan Mahto & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2004 (1) JCR 497 (Jhr) and also relied upon the case of Kishori Shah and Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in WP(C) No.1615 of 2017. It is submitted that in view of the above, this writ petition may be dismissed. 36. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Respondent no.5 by suppressing the material fact made an application directly to the Member, Board of Revenue claiming to be the Owner of the entire land of Khata No.36, Plot No.1355 area 19.60 acres and Plot No.839 and 842 area 5.19 acres, total area 24.79 acres. It is submitted that without following the procedure merely on the basis the application of Respondent no.5 letter no.1314 dated 9.10.2015 was issued from the office of the Member, Board of Revenue, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi to issue rent receipts in favour of the Respondent no.5. The said 14 direction was illegally issued by the Member, Board of Revenue. Thereafter, the petitioners and other villagers, filed representation dated 06.01.2016 (i.e. Annexure-2) before the Principal Secretary, Land Reforms. Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi with a copy to the Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi stating therein that the Jamabandi has been opened on 16.10.2015 by the Block Development Officer-cum-Circle Officer, Daru, District Hazaribag and in this regard incorrect report was submitted by Revenue employee Shri Arun Kumar Singh and the Circle Officer has not been given notice to 16 Anna Raiyat who was in possession since Jamindari period and their names are in return and rent receipts have been issued from 1953 till 1995. It has also been mentioned that on sizable portion of the said land, the rent receipts have been issued in the name of the petitioners and some other persons of the said village and the same has been issued till 1995 and, the said land is in possession of the Raiyats and in their names the rent receipts were also issued and therefore request was made for verification of the statements contained in the said letter through Senior Officer and further request was made not to implement the direction contained in letter no.1314 dated 9th October, 2015. 37. Thereafter a letter dated 7th January 2016 (i.e. Annexure-3) was issued by the Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand, Ranchi, whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag was directed to make thorough verification before implementing the direction in its letter no.1314 dated 09.10.2015. It has further been directed that if any Jamabandi has been opened wrongly in the name of Shri Vishwanath Baidh (Respondent no.5) then immediately the same be cancelled and to 15 send the action taken report. 38. It is submitted that the village Kabilasi was auctioned as back as in the year 1920 in favour of Paro Kunwari and others and Babu Dashrath Singh and others by ancestor of Respondent no.5 and in this regard auction certificate dated 28.7.1920 was granted. 39. It is submitted that the documents filed by the petitioner are genuine and the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are descendents of original raiyat Late Chaman Sao and which is evident from the genealogy duly certified by Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat, Kabilasi, Block Daru, District Hazaribag and Ward Member of village Kabilasi, Panchayat Kabilasi, Block Daru, District Hazaribag. It has also been wrongly stated that the Public land are not included and covered under the land settled to Respondent no.5. It is submitted that the portion of the lands are in peaceful cultivating possession of the petitioners and rent receipts have also been issued in favour of the ancestors of the petitioners till 1995. It is submitted that in hot haste manner a letter dated 16.10.2015 has been issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribag to issue rent receipt in favour of Respondent no.5 of the land of Khata No.36, Plot No.1355 area 19.60 acres and Plot No.839 and 842 area 5.19 acres. 40. It is submitted that the rent receipt of the land of Khata no.36 having an area of 24.79 acres have been issued in favour of the Respondent no.5 without following due procedure of law and without giving an opportunity to the petitioners and other villagers and the purported inquiry report have been prepared behind the back of the petitioners. And hence, this writ petition may be allowed. 16 41. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AAG-I and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.5, it transpires that the petitioners have challenged the opening of Jamabandi in the name of Respondent No.5, which was opened in the year 16.01.1965 and which is also evident from Annexure-A, A/1, A/2 respectively of the Counter Affidavit dated 09.02.2018 filed by the Respondent No.3 42. It transpires that the lands relating to Khata No.36, plot No.1355 measuring an area of 19.60 acres and the land of plot no.839 and 842 area 5.19 acres total 24.79 acres of land was settled in the name of Respondent No.5 and which has been disputed by the writ petitioners. 43. The petitioners have claimed that the aforesaid Khata No.36, plot no.1355 measuring an area of 19.60 acres and plot no.839 and 842 area 5.19 acres total 24.79 acres of land were settled in the name of the ancestors of the petitioners and they are paying continuously rent receipts to the erstwhile State of Bihar since the year 1995. Thereafter, this dispute had arose with the Respondent No.5 exercised his right to get issued rent receipts. The petitioners have further contended that Jamabandi has been wrongly been created in the name of the Respondent No.5 in the year 1965. It is asserted by the petitioners that the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh had impressed and influenced the Circle Officer, Daru, Hazaribagh to issue rent receipt in favour of the Respondent No.5 vide letter No.09.10.2015 (i.e. Annexure-1 Series) and as a result of which, Circle Officer, Daru, Hazaribagh had passed the order dated 16.10.2015 (i.e. Annexure-10) hurriedly without hearing the petitioners and without showing 17 notice to the petitioners. 44. It is evident from the perusal of the records of this writ petition and the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.3 and 4 and the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.5 that the name of Respondent No.5 was opened in Jamabandi Register- II of village-Kabilasi which was recorded in page 127 corresponding to running page 49, reference to pages 89 to 90 in which, it is mentioned in Misc. Case No.17 of 1964-65 and Misc. Case No.18 of 1964-65. A Jamabandi for land of Khata No.36 out of Plot No.1355 measuring an area of 19.60 acres and Jamabandi for land over plot No.839 and 842 measuring an area of 5.19 acres, total 24.79 acres of land was created in the name of Vishwanath Baidh, son of late Baijnath Baidh and the photocopy of Register-II showing the name of Vishwanath Baidh (i.e. Respondent No.5) for the land of Khata No.36 is enclosed as Annexure-A, A/1, A/2 respectively in the Counter Affidavit and for which has not been controverted by any documentary evidence by the petitioner rather they have simply denied the issuance of such documents, which is impermissible. 45. It is further evident that even the rent receipts were issued in the name of Respondent No.5 from 1965 to 1977 which reveals from Annexure-B Series. 46. However, dispute arose on 17.08.2025 (i.e. Annexure-C) and 21.08.2015 (i.e. Annexure-D), when the Respondent No.5 had requested the Circle Officer, Daru and D.C. Hazaribagh for issuing direction to Circle Officer, Daru Hazaribagh to issue rent receipts after accepting the rent receipts from him since the year 1978-79 to till date. Thereafter, a notice was issued to him on 03.09.2015 by 18 the Respondent No.4 and who had asked the Respondent No.5 to produce the relevant documents but when no action was taken for a long period then after some period, he filed representation on 02.10.2015 before the Respondent No.2 for issuance of necessary direction upon the Respondent No.2 as well as Respondent No.4. Thereafter, the Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 09.10.2015 (i.e. Annexure-F) directed the D.C. Hazaribagh to instruct the C.O. Daru to issue rent receipt in the name of Respondent No.5 in respect of the above land. thereafter, the D.C. Hazaribagh i.e. the Respondent No.3 had directed the Respondent No.4 vide memo No.2582 dated 16.10.2015 (i.e. Annexure-G) to issue rent receipt in the name of the Respondent No.5 in compliance of the letter no.1314 dated 09.10.2015. 47. Thus, Respondent No.4 initiated proceeding bearing to Misc. Case No.2 of 2015-16 and after verification of documents and records the Respondent No.4, directed the Halka Karmachari to issue rent receipts in favour of the petitioners in respect of the land in question vide order dated 16.10.2015 (i.e. Annexure-H). 48. Thereafter, a complaint was filed by the Kishori Sah and four others and then D.C. Hazaribagh by letter dated 06.01.2016 (i.e. Annexure-I) had directed the Additional Collector to enquire into the matter and submit his report. Thereafter, Additional Collector had directed the Respondent No.4 i.e. Cricle Officer, Daru to submit his report and by letter dated 22.04.2016 (i.e. Annexure-J). The Circle Officer has submitted his report to the Additional Collector i.e. the Respondent No.3 stating therein that he conducted the enquiry in presence of the villagers as well as the police force and it was found that Respondent No.5 was in cultivating over the area of 24.79 acres of land and even the 19 petitioner and several others i.e. the Kishori Sah, Suleman Mian, Rahmad Mian, Lallu Yadav, Arjun Yadav i.e. the petitioner No.3 Razaque Mian i.e. the petitioner No.4, Sukhdeo Giri, Dilbar Mian, Rameshwar Sao, Laldhari Sao, Rinju Yadav and other 80-90 male and female villagers were present. Even, it was found during enquiry from the villagers that the Respondent No.5 is cultivating his land of Khata No.36 Plot No.839, 842 and 1355 total area of 24.79 acres of land of wheat crop was found and showed the land is parti and the allegation of the applicants i.e. the petitioners and others are false and baseless. 49. It further transpires that thereafter the vide letter no.32 of dated 08.02.2017 (i.e. Annexure-K as enclosed in counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.5), the Respondent No.4 had submitted its report to S.D.O. Sadar Hazaribagh stating therein that Jamabandi has already been created in favour of the Respondent No.5 since 1964-65. It has been pointed out that the rent receipts have been issued to Vishwanath Baidh (i.e. the Respondent No.5) on 16.10.2015 in the light of the letter received from Member, Board of Revenue, Ranchi vide its letter no.1314 dated 09.10.2015 and memo no.2582/Go. Dated 16.10.2015 issued by the D.C. Hazaribagh. 50. It was also pointed out that earlier also that the rent receipts were issued in the year 1965 to the Respondent No.5. 51. Thus, it is evident that various subsequent events have been taken place by the Senior officials which clearly shows that the writ petitioners have got no valid claim to challenge the genuineness of opening of Jamabandi in the year 1965 in name of the Respondent No.5 as Annexure-A enclosed in the Counter Affidavit of the Respondent No.5. 20 52. From perusal of the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioners have not enclosed any document to show settlement of land in favour of the petitioners or their respective ancestors they had produced only Sada Hukumnama showing settlement of land by ex-landlord namely Dasrath Singh and others and also by Masomat Pato Kundari and others in favours of one Chaman Mahto of Village Kabilasi, as it reveals from the Counter Affidavit at para-6 filed by the State. However, the writ petitioners have not enclosed even these documents in support of their prayer in the instant writ petition. Even the amended writ petition contains the Annexure-1 Series, Annexure-2, Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 from the pages 37 to 56 and thereafter, it directly shows Annexure-10 starting from page 57 to 66 and there is no reference of Annexure- 6, 7, 8 and 9 neither in the index nor in the pleading of the amended writ petition. 53. It is further evident that the petitioners have prayed that the letter dated 07.01.2016 (i.e. Annexure-3) of the amended writ petition be implemented by which one Vishnu Kumar, IAS- cum-Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand had directed the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh to keep abeyance the opening of new Jamabandi in the name of Vishwanath Baidh (i.e. Respondent No.5) and also to do necessary work after enquiry in the light of letter No.1314 dated 09.10.2015 issued by the Board of Revenue and if any Jamabandi has been created wrongly in the name of Vishwanath Baidh (i.e. Respondent No.5) then the same may be cancelled forthwith. 54. It transpires that the petitioners have enclosed the letter dated 22.04.2016 which is the Enquiry Report submitted by the Anchal Adhikari, Daru to the Additional Collector, Hazaribagh 21 with regard to the creation of Jamabandi in the name of Vishwanath Baidh (Respondent No.5) by which it has been informed that the allegations levelled against the Vishwanath Baidh (Respondent No.5) are false. It has also been informed that the land in question was enquired by him alongwith Seema Kumari, Block Development Officer, Anchal Inspector, Halka Karmchari, In-Charge Anchal Amin and Police force in presence of some of the petitioners and other villagers and the allegations against the Respondent No.5 were found baseless and false and the allegations of wrongly Banobasti of aforesaid land were not found and which is shown as Annexure-J of Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.5 and in amended writ petition as Annexure-12 and which is also being part of Annexure-3 of the Amended writ petition which starts from page 50 to 51. 55. 55. It also appears that the petitioners had field representation on 24.12.2016 before Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh (i.e. Annexxure-4) and also filed letter which is at page 52-55 after cutting the page no.35-37 and also enclosed the representation dated 24.12.2016 before the RTI, Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, demanding certain information as contained Annexure-5 at Page 57-58 of Amended writ petition after cutting page No.40-41 and also enclosed the Memo No.2582 dated 16.10.2015 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, to Anchal Adhikari, Hazaribagh at page 59 after cutting page 37/38 of the amended writ petition. They have also enclosed the order dated 16.10.2015 of the office of Anchal Adhikari, Hazaribagh at page 60-61 and they have also enclosed the enquiry report sent by Andhal Adhikari, Daru, Hazaribagh to Additional Collector dated 22.04.2016 vide letter dated 1555 dated 22.04.2016 at page 62-66 22 after cutting page no.16-20 of the amended writ petition. 56. It further transpires on the application filed by the Respondent No.5 for issuance of rent receipts on 21.08.2015, a thorough enquiry was conducted by the Respondent No.4 and the Respondent No.5 had also pointed out in his explanation dated 09.09.2015 (i.e. Annexure-E) that under the Memo No.87 dated 16.01.1965 by then Circle Officer-cum-Block Development Officer, Ichak rent receipt was issued to him and in support of his creation of Jamabandi and he also produced the photocopy of certified copy of Register-II and also rent receipts as well as the certified copy of Return submitted by the ex-landlords in favour of the petitioner for the land measuring an area of 24.79 acres of land under plot no.1355, 839 and 842 of Khata No.36 as contained in Annexure-A and Annexure-B B of Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.5. 57. The Respondent No.5 had also submitted the representation before the Respondent No.2 on 09.10.2015 (Annexure-F) requesting direction upon the Respondent No.3 to issue rent receipt then Respondent No.3 i.e. Secretary, Land Reforms and Revenue Department, Government of Jharkhand directed the Respondent No.4 to issue rent receipt in favour of the Respondent No.5 after verifying the records and take appropriate step in the matter for issuance of rent receipts after 1997-98. 58. It transpires that the Respondent No.3 i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh on 16.10.2015 had directed the Respondent No.4 to enquiry and take appropriate action and then Respondent No.4 i.e. Circle Officer, Daru, Hazaribagh had passed the impugned order dated 16.10.2015 (i.e. Annexure-11) by instituting Misc. Case No.02/2015-16 and after verification of the 23 documents as well as the concerned persons and after taking statements of several persons had directed the Halka Karmchari to issue rent receipts in the name of Respondent No.5 for the aforesaid lands. 59. Therefore, it is evident that order dated 16.10.2015 (i.e. Annexure-11) was passed by the Respondent No.4 after verifying all the documents and after taking statement of some of the other persons including some of the writ petitioners. 60. From Perusal of the order dated 16.10.2015 (i.e. Annexure-11) and Annexure-J of the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.5, it is evident that Anchal Adhikari had seen and perused the examined following records as follows:- (i). Photocopy of certified copy of Register-II – in two sheets, (ii). Compensation record No.412/68-69 containing the certified copy of return, (iii). Memo No.87 dated 16.01.1965 and Memo No.88 dated 16.01.1965 issued by the Anchal Adhikari-cum-Block Development Officer, Daru, (iv). Five (05) photocopy of Government Rent receipts. Thereafter, he had directed the Halka Karmchari, is issue Government rent receipts. 61. The Anchal Adhikari had also submitted his report on 22.04.2016 (Annexure-J) in the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.5 and Annexure-12 in the writ petition that he had submitted the Enquiry Report on the application filed before the Chief Minister, Government of Jharkhand and he had submitted his report pointwise as follows:- “Jamabandi of land of village Kabilasi P.S. 122 Khata No.36 Plot No.839, 842 and 1355 area of 24.79 acres out of 60.28 24 acre. Jambandi has been opened in the year 1965 in the name of Vishwanath Baidh son of Baijnath Baid (i.e. the Respondent No.5) at page no.89-90 in old Register -II. (i) Misc. Case No.17/64-65 and 18/64-65 has also been opened accordingly. On the basis of local inspection and revenue documents, he alongwith Additional Collector, Hazaribagh Hazaribagh Seema Kumari, Block Development Officer, Anchal Inspector, Halka Karmachari, In-Charge Anchal Amin and Police Force had conducted the enquiry in presence of villagers. During course of enquiry, villagers of village-Kabilasi and other respective persons namely Kishori Sah, i.e. the petitioner no.1, Suleman Mian, Rahmad Mian, Lallu Yadav, Arjun Yadav i.e. the petitioner No.3 Razaque Mian i.e. the petitioner No.4, Sukhdeo Giri, Dilbar Mian, Rameshwar Sao, Laldhari Sao, Rinju Yadav and other 80-90 male and female villagers were present. He further perused the Revenue Records of Khata No.36 Plot No.1355,839,842 total area 16.28 acres of village Kabilasi and he found that Shri Baidh (i.e. Respondent No.5) reside in the village and the villagers had informed that Shri Baidh (i.e. Respondent No.5) used to cultivate and plough the land of Khata No.36 , Plot No.839, 842 and 1355 total area 24.79 acres of land and presently some wheat crops have been grown on some portion of land which is situated at the core of the river and filed has been made on the remaining portion of the land and some portion is tand which is parti. He also stated that applicants have falsely and baselessly levelled allegation of distributing the land of Government property illegally. (ii) Government rent receipt has been issued on 16.10.2015 in 25 the name of Shri Baidh (i.e. Respondent No.5) in compliance of letter no.1314/R.P. dated 09.10.2015 and Memo No.2582/Go dated 16.10.2015 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh. Earlier also the lagan receipt has also been issued of settled land in the year 1965. The applicants i.e. the petitioner have falsely have alleged that new Jambandi has been issued in the Shri Baid (i.e. Respondent No.5) by the order of the Block Development Officer-cum-Anchal Adhikari, which is completely illegal because no such order has been issued. (iii) Anchal Office had issued notice for illegal possession of the Government land of Khata No.36 and Plot No.839, 842 and 1355 at Mouza Kabilasi and for the paper were produced. He also enclosed/shown the names of the 25 person land of Khata No. and area in question but the said papers were forged and incomplete. It has been falsely alleged that land settled in the name of Vishwanath Baidh (Respondent No.5) is under the Forest Notified Area rather the above lave is outside the notified area and the local villagers have stated that they are cultivating the land since the time of their grandfather and great grandfather. (iv) During spot enquiry with map it was alleged that one acre aahar and four acre grazing land, Chath Ghat, Karbala etc., public land and road going to cremation ghat has been obstructed and there is common worship place is completely wrong. The above land is completely outside from the land settle with Vishwanath Baidh (i.e. Respondent No.5) and the area of 24.79 acres of land settled with Vishwanath Baidh (i.e. Respondent No.5) has got no concerned with the aforesaid land. (v) He had taken charge of Anchal Adhikari as per the direction of the Government of Jharkhand and in the light of letter 26 No.1075/Est. dated 15.03.2015 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh and he has not used any over power unauthorizedly. (vi) Although, the allegation has been alleged levelled against Vishwanath Baidh (i.e. Respondent No.5) for producing forged and fabricated paper and which was enquired in the record room office and also earlier by Anchal Adhikari Ichak by Misc.17/64- 60 and also by the Block Development Officer-cum-Anchal Adhikari, Anchal Inspector, Anchal Halka Karmachari, Head Clerk but no evidence could be found due to absence of record and as such the allegation of wrong settlement is not being proved. (viii) The applicants (i.e. the petitioners) have been provided with the certified copy of order dated 16.10.2015 passed in Misc. Case No.2/15-16 from the Anchal Office and thus the allegation of violating the legal right of the petitioners is also false.” 62. Thus, from perusal of the report dated 22.04.2016 as contained in Annexure-12 of the writ petition and Annexure-J of the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.5, it is evident that Anchal Adhikari, Daru had made thorough enquiry in presence of persons aforementioned above in the preceding paragraph and also in presence of the villagers and the case of the petitioner were not found correct and the allegation of issuing written Jamabandi in the name of Vishwanath Baidh (i.e. Respondent No.5) had been found false. 63. It is well settled from the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand that long standing Jamabandi cannot be cancelled in the case of Izhar Hussain vs. The State of Jharkhand reported in WP(C) No.593 of 2017 and in 27 the case of in the case of Damari Ram Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2017 (4) JLJR Page 605 and of Islam Ansari Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2012 (3) JLJR Page 80. 64. It has been held in the case of Izhar Hussain vs. The State of Jharkhand passed in W.P.(C) No.593 of 2017 vide judgment dated 14.06.2018 at para-16 as follows:- “Para-16:- In view of the provisions contained in Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of T. Godavarman (Supra.), it is abundantly clear that Section 2 of the Act, 1980 is applicable to the government as well as the private forest land, so as to check/restrict deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance. The term ‘Forest’ will not only mean forest as understood in the dictionary sense but will also include the land recorded as forest in the government record irrespective of its ownership. Thus, the purpose of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 is to check deforestation irrespective of the fact that the land is owned by the government or by the private person. Nevertheless, the provisions of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 or the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme court rendered in the case of T. Godavarman (Supra.) cannot be applied by the respondent authorities for cancellation of Jamabandi much less the long running one.” 65. It has been held in the case of The State of Jharkhand and Ors. vs. Izhar Hussain passed in L.P.A. No.786 of 2018 vide judgment dated 05.11.2020 by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court at para 25 as follows:- “Para-25:- We, on appreciation of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and on the basis of discussions made herein above, are of the view that there is no reason to differ with the view/opinion of the learned Single Judge, by coming to the conclusion that the order dated 09.09.2016 passed by the revenue authorities is illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law, as they have 28 exercised power conferred under section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 which as per the discussions made herein above has been found to be not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case as the case of the writ petitioner is that he is claiming title over the land in question on the basis of settlement made prior to 1st January, 1946 and further the additional Collector by way of order passed in Misc. Case No. 56/2015-16 has already passed order on 17.03.2016 holding therein that the present raiyats i.e Izhar Hussain and Akhtar Hussain are the recorded raiyats of Register-II in Thoka (Lot) No. 1665 which is absolutely correct and proper. But without questioning and without reversal of that order, a fresh proceeding was initiated under Section 4(h) of the Act, 1950 and further long running Jamabandi cannot be cancelled, save and except by instituting a litigation 30 before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted with.” 66. It has been held in the case of Jitan Mahto and Anr. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2004 (1) JCR 497 (Jhr) at para 4 to 6 as follow:- “Para-4:- A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State by one Triveni Kumar, Circle Officer, Giridih. In his counter affidavit the Circle Officer tried to support the order by taking a plea that this Court is not competent Court to interefere with the order and this matter be adjudicated by civil suit. In para 10 of the counter affidavit the Circle officer stated that the prayer made by the petitioner not to enter the name of respondent No.6 in the zamabandi register is a prayer which should be made in the injunction petition under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2, CPC. It is a very sorry state of affair that while controverting the statement made in para 9 and 10 of the writ petition wherein the petitioner has made a specific case that after purchase in the year in 1969, their names were mutated and rent receipts were issued by the State of Bihar. It is stated by the Circle Officer he has no knowledge whether the rent receipts and taxes are genuine or not. He further stated that it is a matter of record. The Circle Officer is not supposed to make such irresponsible statement. If the Circle Officer is not aware of rent 29 receipts issued to the petitioner and whether those rent receipts were genuine, he is not at all competent to continue to the post of Circle Officer. I deprecate the irresponsible statement made by the Circle Officer in the counter affidavit. Para-5:- Be that as it may. From the pleading of the parties, it appears that the name of the petitioner has been running in the revenue record since 1969, the respondents had no authority to cancel the zamabandi merely at the instance of the respondent No.6. it was for the respondent No.6 to go to the civil Court for adjudication of his right, title and interest in the property. The impugned orders cancelling the zambandi passed by the respondents are directly against the settled principles of law, the said cannot be sustained in law. Para-6:- With the aforesaid notification this writ application is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside.” 67. It has been held in the case of Damari Ram Singh vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2017 (4) JLJR Page 605 at para-8 to 14 as follows:- “Para-8:- Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. The petitioner is claiming that the said land was actually settled in the name of the father of the vendor of the petitioner by the ex-landlord on 22.10.1949 and after vesting of Zamindari, the name of the vendor of the petitioner was entered in Register-II and he paid rent for the said land. It is further claimed by the petitioner that the said land was purchased by him on 14.02.1991 and since the date of purchase, he is in possession of the said land and his name was also mutated in the office of the Circle Officer, Kanke and he paid rent till 2003. However, the respondents, on the other hand, are claiming that the said land was 'Gair Mazurwa Malik' land and after vesting of Zamindari, the same vested in the State of Jharkhand. It is further claimed that the State of Jharkhand is in possession of the said land and the original Zamabandi of Khata No. 47 was opened in the name of 'Anabad Bihar Sarkar'. The respondents also claim that the vendor of the petitioner as well as the petitioner in connivance with the revenue officials, got his 30 name mutated without any decision of the competent authority. Para-9:- It is an admitted position that though the land in question has been originally recorded as 'Gair Mazarua Malik' in the Revisional Survey Records of Right, the Zamabandi in respect of the said land had been running in the name of Bindeshwari Sahu and others since 1969-70 to 1990-91. On the basis of the said Zamabandi, the respondents all along accepted rent and recognized Bindeshwari Sahu as Raiyat in respect of the said land. The petitioner is the purchaser of the said land and after purchasing the same, he applied for mutation before the Circle Officer. Consequently, mutation was allowed. The petitioner had also been paying rent in respect of the said land till 2003. Though the said land is recorded as 'Gair Mazarua Malik' or 'Gair Abad Malik' in the Revisional Survey Records of Right, the State has recognized the tenancy right of Bindeshwari Sahu by accepting rent over a period of several decades and his name had been running in the Tenants Ledger/Register-II maintained by the Anchal Office for such a long time without any objection from any quarter. It is a settled position of law that a long running Zamabandi cannot be cancelled, unless there is any such decree/order of a competent Court or it is established in any legal proceeding that the Zamabandi was created by playing fraud by the Raiyat or creation of such Zamabandi was vitiated in law. It is a well-known concept of law that a revenue authority has no jurisdiction to decide the question of title by initiating a proceeding of cancellation of Zamabandi, which was running since long. Any such decision can only be taken by a Court of competent civil jurisdiction. The cancellation of the Zamabandi by the revenue authority and setting the right, title and interest of the petitioner over the said land, at naught, is therefore without jurisdiction. Para-10:- In the case of Ramayan Yadav Vs. State of Bihar reported in [2013] 3 PLJR 533, a Division Bench of this court has held as under : “8. So far the other point is concerned, it is settled principle of law that the Jambandi cannot be cancelled by the said authority, rather a civil suit is the only remedy. On this point, a plethora of decisions are available including a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Khiru Gope 31 and two others Versus The Land Reforms, Deputy Collector, Jamui and three others, reported in A.I.R. 1983 Patna 121. Learned counsel for the appellants completely failed to controvert this issue.” Para-11:- In the case of Gulabasi Devi Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2003) 3 JLJR 793, a Bench of this court has held as follows: “6. Admittedly the land was recorded in the survey record of right as Gair Mazarua Malik in the name of the ex-landlord who settled the land in favour of the vendor of the petitioner Ram Kewal Sahu. The ex-landlord submitted his return showing Ram Kewal Sahu as settlee and jamabandi was opened in his name. The genuineness of the record of right, the settlement made in favour of Ram Kewal Sahu and the jamabandi opened in his name was never challenged by the state of Bihar rather in all the proceedings initiated at the instance of Baij Nath Prasad and respondent No. 7 the authorities of the State decided all those proceedings in favour of the petitioner. It is well settled that once jamabandi opened in favour of a person and that continued for a number of years, it can be cancelled only by initiating a proceeding by the Collector under Section 4(h) of the Bihar Land Reforms Act. Reference may be made to a division bench decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Harihar Singh v. Additional Collector, 1978 BBCJ 323.” Para-12:- In the case of Jitan Mahto & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Supra) also, the same view has been reiterated by a Bench of this Court holding that the Zamabandi running since 1969, cannot be cancelled by the respondents. Para-13:- Otherwise also, the stand of the respondent- State that the land in question is recorded as 'Gair Mazarua Malik' in the record of rights and as such after vesting of Zamindari, the same has been vested in the State Government, cannot be accepted as a good ground because it is well-settled by series of judgments of this Court that if it is 'Gair Mazarua Malik' land, the Zamindar had full authority to make settlement thereof and if the State challenges the correctness of the settlement and possession, onus is entirely upon the State to prove that they are wrong. The onus cannot be fastened on the 32 person, who has been in possession of the said land since long. The manner in which the State-respondents have acted in the present matter is self-explanatory, as on the one hand, it is claimed by the State authorities that the land in question belongs to the State and on the other hand, a revenue officer of the State Government opened the Zamabandi of the said land in the name of the petitioner and also accepted rent for the said land for considerable period. In my view, the State authorities should refrain themselves from taking such steps, as has been taken in the present case. Para-14:- In view of the above discussions and judicial pronouncements, the writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 23.07.2008 passed by the Additional Collector, Ranchi (respondent No.3) in Misc. Case No. 26 of 2007-08 (Annexure-6) is, hereby, quashed and set aside. However, the State Government shall have liberty to take recourse in accordance with law. 68. It has been held by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Islam Ansari Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2012 (3) JLJR Page 80 at para-8 to 11 as follows:- “Para-8:- According to the petitioner, the land, in question, was Gairmajarua Malik and his grandfather had acquired the same by virtue of settlement (Annexure-3) from the ex-landlord by executing Kabuliat (Annexure-2) followed by rent receipts (Annexure-4 series). After vesting of Zamindari under the provisions of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, the State recognized the petitioner’s father as tenant in respect of the said land and his name was entered in Register-II. The State, accordingly, issued rent receipts in respect of the said land. after death of the petitioner’s father, the petitioner approached the revenue authority and offered to pay rent,, but the same was refused. The said facts have not been disputed by the State respondents in their counter affidavit. It has also not been disputed by the State respondents in their counter affidavit. It has also not been disputed that there is no contrary order of any competent court of law, setting aside the jamabandi running in favour of the petitioner’s father. Admittedly, no notice was issued and no proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. He was not given any 33 opportunity of hearing before refusing to accept rent and granting rent receipts. Para-9:- It has been repeatedly held that Jamabandi created in favour of a raiyat confers valuable right and the same cannot be interfered with or taken away lightly, arbitrarily and illegality. If there is any defect in creation of Jamabandi or if the Jamabandi is wrongly opened, the State can challenge the same in a legal proceeding before the competent court of law. They cannot be simply refuse to accept rent and grant rent receipts. Para-10:- In the instant case, no order of any competent court has been brought to the notice of this Court against the running Jamabandi of the petitioner. In view thereof, the respondents have no authority to refuse acceptance of rent and issuance of rent receipts to the petitioner. Para-11:- For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed. The Circle Officer, Ratu is directed to accept rent in respect of the land, in question, offered by the petitioner and grant rent receipt until any contrary order is passed by any competent court of law.” 69. It is well settled from the catena of judgments that Jamabandi created long ago cannot be cancelled. 70. It is held in the case of Ramayan Yadav and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (2013) 3 PLJR 533 at para 8 to 10 as follow:- “Para-8:- So far the other point is concerned, it is settled principle of law that the Jambandi cannot be cancelled by the said authority, rather a civil suit is the only remedy. On this point, a plethora of decisions are available including a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Khiru Gope v. The Land Reforms, Deputy Collector, Jamui, reported in A.I.R. 1983 Patna 121. Learned counsel for the appellants completely failed to controvert this issue. Para-9:- It is quite apparent that in the name of predecessors of the writ petitioners Jamabandi was created in Jamabandi cases of 1977-78 which were decided in 1983 and only after a decade approximately the said Jamabandi had been cancelled by the Circle Officer and Jamabandi had been created in favour of the private 34 respondents without giving any notice or information about the said case to the writ petitioners. Furthermore, creation of Jamabandi cannot legally depend merely on fixation of rent, rather it is the other way round and hence if the authorities have taken such an action it is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and perverse and the learned Single Judge who had passed the order was quite justified in allowing the claim of the writ petitioners. Para-10:- Furthermore, pendency of the title suit is not very important because if title suit is pending the issue of cancellation of Jamabandi can be decided in the said title suit and if the title suit is not pending, the aggrieved party has to file a title suit for cancellation of Jamabandi, hence the said plea of the petitioner does not cut much ice. In any view of the matter it is only the title suit in which such matter can be legally decided.” 71. It is held in the case of Anil Kumar Bajaj Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 4097 at Para-13 to 18 as follow:- “Para-13:- Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length. On the basis of the pleadings and arguments made by the parties it is not in dispute that the jamabandi has been running in the name of the Petitioner since 1974. Moreso, the mutation was already running in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioner since 1971. Such orders have attained finality as no appeal/revision were moved under the relevant provision of law to annul the same, within the statutory period of limitation. It is trite law, that long standing jamabandi cannot be cancelled by any authority, except by taking recourse to a civil suit. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Court rendered in the case of Ramayan Yadav v. The State of Bihar, (2013) 3 PLJR 533. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:— “So far the other point is concerned, it is settled principle of law that the Jamabandi cannot be cancelled by the said authority, rather a civil suit is the only remedy. On this point, a plethora of decisions are available including a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Khiru Gope v. The Land Reforms, Deputy Collector, 35 Jamui, 1982 SCC OnLine Pat 143 : AIR 1983 Pat 121 [ : 1983 PLJR 727]. Learned counsel for the appellants completely failed to controvert this issue”. Para-14:- The Court is cognizant of the fact that the issue involved in the instant case is not with respect to the cancellation of jamabandi. However, considering the stand taken by the Respondent-State, wherein it has been submitted that the jamabandi of the Petitioner is suspicious; it is necessary for the Court to observe that when revenue authority is not vested with the jurisdiction to annul a long-standing jamabandi, it also has no authority or power to create hinderance with any right associated with it. Moreso, when the exercise of creation/opening of a new jamabandi itself, does not is not a judicial or a quasi- judicial process. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment rendered in the case of Depta Tewari v. State of Bihar, 1987 PLJR 1037. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under for ready reference:— “8. In my view the Officers passing the orders on mutation matter do not exercise any judicial or quasi- judicial function. They arrive at a decision of possession on the basis of the evidence placed before them including the reports of the officers concerned.” The case at hand is placed at a much better pedestal, as there is an admitted jamabandi in the favour of the Petitioner running since 1974. The Respondent State is only to make the revenue record online. The same is merely a clerical and mechanical process which should have been done as a matter of routine administrative procedure. The State cannot pick and choose the entries which are to be made visible online as such action would smack of gross arbitrariness. The first issue stands answered accordingly. Para-15:- It is trite law that revenue records are for fiscal purposes only and the Circle Officer is not competent to take a decision on the right, title and interest of the parties. This is the consistent view taken in a plethora of judgment, most recently in the case of Koderma Gaushala Samittee v. The State of Jharkhand (16.04.2024 - JHRHC), 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 1631. Moreso, the Hon'ble Apex Court in a plethora of judgments have held that entry in the revenue record has no bearing on the right, title and interest of a person. Reference is made to 36 one such judgment i.e. Jitendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, LL 2021 SC 430. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:— “Be that as it may, as per the settled proposition of law, mutation entry does not confer any right, title or interest in favour of the person and the mutation entry in the revenue record is only for the fiscal purpose.” Para-16:- The objection raised by the Respondent-State is with respect to the right, title and interest of the Petitioner. The Intervenor has also objected to the relief sought by the Petitioner on the ground that the right, title and interest of the vendor of the Petitioner is doubted and the same is currently sub-judice before the Ld. Civil Court. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, is not entering into the merits of right, title and interest. If any party is disputing the title of the Petitioner; they are at liberty to approach the jurisdictional civil court, subject to the provisions of law. Para-17:- In light of the above settled position of law, the argument of the Respondent-State and the Ld. Counsel for the intervenor is not acceptable to this Court. This Court is having no hesitation in holding that the circle officer cannot look into issues of right, title and interest while creating a jamabandi in favour of a person. Even factually, the objection raised by the State cannot be considered as the trace-map annexed to the counter-affidavit as Annexure-D, clearly transpires that the scheduled property is not in the possession of any government institution. Moreso, the concern of SIRD is with respect to Plot No. 43 and 45 within Khata No. 176, while the land of the Petitioner appertains to Plot No. 44 within Khata No. 176. The second issue stands answered accordingly. Para-18:- Lastly, the jamabandi running in the name of the Petitioner and his father has been created in 1974. Once the jamabandi is created, the State cannot deny acceptance of rent and the issuance of rent receipt. This Hon'ble Court in the case of State of Jharkhand v. Md. Zulfan Ansari (L.P.A. Nos. 318 of 2022) has categorically held that the State authorities have no jurisdiction to deny acceptance of rent and issuance of rent receipt thereby causing loss to the public exchequer. It is therefore made clear that the inaction on part of 37 the Respondent in making the revenue record of the Petitioner visible is contrary to law.” 72. It has been stated in Para-6 of the Counter Affidavit dated 09.02.2018 filed by the Respondent No.4 i.e. the BDO-cum-C.O that the petitioners have filed forged and fabricated documents of Hukumnama said to be granted by Dasrath Singh and other and Masomat Pato Kundari and others in favor of the one Chaman Mahto of village Kabilasi. Neither Chaman Mahto nor his descendants are the petitioners in the instant writ petition. It was also stated in the counter affidavit that in course of enquiry it was also found that the settlement made to Vishwanath Baidh (i.e. Respondent No.5) is out of forest demarcation area. It was also stated that even certain land of four (04) acres i.e. the grazing field like Charwaha, Chath Ghat, Karbala etc. are not included and covered under the lands settle to Respondent No.5 i.e. Vishwanath Baidh. The State has also admitted in its Counter Affidavit that the record of Register II of village Kabilasi has find mentioned at page 127 corresponding to running page 49 reference of page no.89 and 90 wherein it has mentioned that vide Misc. Case No.17 of 64-65 and Misc. Case No.18 of 64-65 the Jamabandi for land of Khata no.36 out of plot no.1355 and area of 19.60 acres and plot no.839 and 842, and area of 5.19 acres total areas 24.79 acres was created in the name of Bishwanath Baid respondent No.5 and annual rent of Rs.12/- and Rs.3/- respectively realized from the respondent no.5. 73. Thus, the case of the Respondent No.5 has been fully supported by the averments made in the Counter Affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the State and submissions made by the learned counsel for the State. 38 74. It is well settled from the judicial pronouncements that once a jamabandi is created and running for a long period then the same cannot be cancelled. 75. Therefore, in view of the above the writ petition is devoid of merit and the claim raised on behalf of the petitioner is not sustainable. Accordingly, this writ petition No.1615 of 2017 is, hereby, dismissed. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) Jharkhand High Court N.A.F.R Nishant/-